Subject: LONG: Dual Citizenship FAQ (part 2 of 2) (fwd)

From: Tery Griffin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To: CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:21:08 -0500

Content-Type: text/plain

Parts/Attachments: text/plain (1030 lines)

---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:29:09 ESTFrom: Rich Wales <[log in to unmask]>To: [log in to unmask]Subject: Dual Citizenship FAQ (part 2 of 2)                               DUAL CITIZENSHIP FAQ:                    DUAL NATIONALITY AND UNITED STATES LAW Part 2 of 2: Reference Materials   BY RICH WALES   LAST REVISED: MON FEB 6 17:01:27 EST 1995      _________________________________________________________________ Table of contents      * Obtaining a copy of this document      * Disclaimers      * Questions and answers on dual US/other citizenship (in Part 1)      * United States law on dual citizenship          + Citizenship vs. nationality          + Acquisition of citizenship          + Loss of citizenship          + 1986 citizenship law amendments          + 1994 citizenship law amendments          + US passport regulations      * Supreme Court decisions on dual citizenship          + Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)          + Vance v. Terrazas (1980)          + Mandoli v. Acheson (1952)

          + Kawakita v. U.S. (1952)      * State Department policies on dual citizenship          + Information on Dual Nationality          + Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual            Nationality          + Foreign Military Service      _________________________________________________________________ Obtaining a copy of this document    Owing to its size, the Dual Citizenship FAQ has been split into two   parts. Part 1 contains an overview of the subject, with answers to   frequently asked questions. Part 2 contains references to laws, court   cases, and administrative policies on dual citizenship.    The latest version of the Dual Citizenship FAQ can be found as   http://www.mks.com/home/richw/dualcit.html and   http://www.mks.com/home/richw/dualcit2.html on the World Wide Web.    A plain text version can be had as ftp://ftp.mks.com/usr/richw/dualcit   and ftp://ftp.mks.com/usr/richw/dualcit2 via anonymous FTP (i.e., FTP   to ftp.mks.com and get the file named /usr/richw/dualcit). Note that   the plain text version might not be as up to date as the hypertext   version on the World Wide Web.    If you don't have Internet access, you can get a copy of the plain   text version by sending e-mail to me ([log in to unmask]) with "Subject:   send dualcit" in the header (not the body) of your message. Both parts   of the FAQ (plain text form) will be mailed to you.      _________________________________________________________________ Disclaimers    I am not a lawyer, a professional immigration consultant, or a   government official. Nothing in this document should be considered   "legal advice" in any jurisdiction.    Unless indicated otherwise, any opinions or interpretations expressed   in this document are mine alone. In particular, this material does not   in any way express the opinions of my employer, Mortice Kern Systems   Inc. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.    If you are in a dual citizenship situation, or are contemplating such   a move, you should consider discussing your plans with an attorney who   is knowledgeable in this particular aspect of immigration law. At the   very least, I would encourage you to verify anything you may read here   with authoritative sources.      _________________________________________________________________ 

United States law on dual citizenship      * Citizenship vs. nationality        The US statutes on immigration and citizenship are codified in the       Immigration and Nationality Act, which can be found in Title 8 of       the United States Code, starting with section 1101 (8 U.S.C. 1101       ff.).        US law makes a distinction between "citizenship" and       "nationality." All US citizens are also US nationals; however,       some US nationals are not US citizens.        The term "national" is defined as follows in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)       and 1101(a)(22):           + (21) The term 'national' means a person owing permanent            allegiance to a state.           + (22) The term 'national of the United States' means (A) a            citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not            a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to            the United States.        The concept of having US nationality, but not US citizenship, is       defined in 8 U.S.C. 1408. Basically, inhabitants of US territories       and possessions are US nationals, but not US citizens. However,       people born in the following US possessions are defined in 8       U.S.C. 1402-1407 to be citizens: Puerto Rico, Canal Zone, Guam, US       Virgin Islands, and Alaska and Hawaii (before they became states).        Although most references in this FAQ to US "citizenship" should,       for the sake of completeness, technically refer to US       "nationality", I have chosen to use the more common term in the       interests of clarity.      * Acquisition of citizenship        The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) defines the       following classes of people as having US citizenship from the time       of birth:           + The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United            States at birth:                o (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to                 the jurisdiction thereof;                o (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an                 Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:                 Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this                 subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise                 affect the right of such person to tribal or other                 property;

                o (c) a person born outside of the United States and its                 outlying possessions of parents both of whom are                 citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a                 residence in the United States or one of its outlying                 possessions, prior to the birth of such person;                o (d) a person born outside of the United States and its                 outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen                 of the United States who has been physically present in                 the United States or one of its outlying possessions for                 a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of                 such person, and the other of whom is a national, but                 not a citizen of the United States;                o (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the                 United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the                 United States who has been physically present in the                 United States or one of its outlying possessions for a                 continuous period of one year at any time prior to the                 birth of such person;                o (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United                 States while under the age of five years, until shown,                 prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not                 to have been born in the United States;                o (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the                 United States and its outlying possessions of parents                 one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the                 United States who, prior to the birth of such person,                 was physically present in the United States or its                 outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling                 not less than five years, at least two of which were                 after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided,                 That any periods of honorable service in the Armed                 Forces of the United States, or periods of employment                 with the United States Government or with an                 international organization as that term is defined in                 section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any                 periods during which such citizen parent is physically                 present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or                 daughter and a member of the household of a person (A)                 honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United                 States, or (B) employed by the United States Government                 or an international organization as defined in section                 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the                 physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This                 proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after                 December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had                 become effective in its present form on that date.        Subsection (a) in the above is taken directly from the 14th       Amendment to the US Constitution. The effect of the phrase

       "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is that children born in the       US to foreign diplomats, officials, diplomatic staff, and the like       are not US citizens by birth.        In subsection (c), the phrase "has had a residence in the United       States" appears to be interpreted as meaning "lived in the US at       any time in his or her life for at least one year" -- based on my       own personal experience when I registered my foreign-born infant       son with the US consulate in Toronto early in 1994.        Prior to November 1986, the required amount of physical presence       in subsection (g) was ten years (not five), and at least five (not       two) of those years had to occur after the parent reached age 14.        A description of the US naturalization oath is given in 8 U.S.C.       1448(a). Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is       that, as part of the oath, a new citizen must pledge "to renounce       and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to       any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or       which the applicant was before a subject or citizen." In practice,       it is unclear what if any true legal significance this statement       has any more.      * Loss of citizenship        The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) specifies the       following conditions under which US citizenship may be lost:           + (a) From and after the effective date of this Act 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:--                o (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his                 own application or upon an application filed by a duly                 authorized agent, after having attained the age of                 eighteen years; or                o (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other                 formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a                 political subdivision thereof, after having attained the                 age of eighteen years; or                o (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a                 foreign state if (a) such armed forces are engaged in                 hostilities against the United States, or (b) such                 persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned                 officer; or                o (4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties                 of any office, post, or employment under the government                 of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof,                 after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or

                 acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B)                 accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any                 office, post, or employment under the government of a                 foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after                 attaining the age of eighteen years for which office,                 post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration                 of allegiance is required; or                o (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a                 diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a                 foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the                 Secretary of State; or                o (6) making in the United States a formal written                 renunciation of nationality in such form as may be                 prescribed by, and before such officer as may be                 designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United                 States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney                 General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary                 to the interests of national defense; or                o (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting                 by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against the                 United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of                 the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United                 States Code [rebellion or insurrection against the US],                 or willfully performing any act in violation of section                 2385 of title 18, United States Code [advocating                 overthrow of the US government], or violating section                 2384 of said title [conspiracy to overthrow the US                 government] by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow,                 put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the                 United States, or to levy war against them, if and when                 he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court                 of competent jurisdiction.           + (b) [Deleted] [voluntariness of expatriating actions            performed during an extended stay in a foreign country]           + (c) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in            issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after the            enactment of this subsection [26 September 1961] under, or by            virtue of, the provisions of this 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. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b),            any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or            performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of            this 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.        The primary effect of recent developments in the US regarding dual

       citizenship has been to affirm the concept that loss of       citizenship can only result when the person in question intended       that his actions should result in such loss.      * 1986 citizenship law amendments        On 14 November 1986, President Reagan signed Public Law 99-653       (100 Stat. 3655). This bill amended the Immigration and       Nationality Act to conform to the requirements of the Afroyim and       Terrazas decisions of the Supreme Court. The principal changes       made were the following:          1. An action, in order to result in loss of citizenship, had to            have been performed voluntarily and with the intention of            giving up US citizenship.          2. Previously, a person who had been naturalized in the US as a            child, and who then left the US, could lose his US            citizenship if he failed to establish a permanent residence            in the US prior to age 25. This provision was repealed. Note            that this provision did not apply to natural-born US            citizens; see Mandoli v. Acheson.          3. Previously, a person could lose US citizenship through            foreign military service unless said service were approved            in advance by US officials. Also, a US citizen who entered a            foreign military service prior to age 18 would not lose his            US citizenship unless he had been given an option by said            foreign country to leave its army at age 18, and failed to do            so. All this was replaced by subsection (a)(3) as shown            above.          4. A previous subsection (b) was deleted; this said that if a US            citizen were a citizen of a foreign country, had spent one or            more periods of time in that country totalling at least ten            years, and performed any of the listed actions that could            result in loss of US citizenship, the action in question            would be conclusively presumed to have been performed            voluntarily and without duress (i.e., the person in question            would not have a legal right to present contrary evidence in            a court case).      * 1994 citizenship law amendments        On 25 October 1994, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-416       (108 Stat. 4305). This bill made two notable changes to the laws       pertaining to naturalization.        Previously, candidates for US citizenship were required to state       that they intended to reside permanently in the US following       naturalization. This requirement was repealed by Congress.        Additionally, a newly naturalized US citizen who, within one year       following his naturalization, abandoned his US residence and set

       up a permanent residence outside the US (whether in his country of       origin, or in any other country) was presumed to have       misrepresented his intentions regarding permanent residence on his       citizenship application (though this presumption could be overcome       by appropriate evidence to the contrary), and on this basis could       have his US citizenship cancelled retroactively. This provision       was also repealed.      * US passport regulations        The Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1185(b)] states the       following regarding movement to or from the US by citizens:           + (b) Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject            to such limitations and exceptions as the President may            authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen            of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to            depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a            valid passport.        Detailed regulations specifying when a US citizen must, or need       not, use a US passport are published in Part 53 of Title 22 of the       Code of Federal Regulations (22 CFR 53). Note that, despite the       title of this section, it evidently applies at all times, not just       during a war or a national emergency.           + PART 53 - TRAVEL CONTROL OF CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES IN TIME            OF WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY             Sec. 53.1 -- Passport Requirement.             Under section 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act            [8 U.S.C. 1185(b)], it is unlawful except as otherwise            provided for any citizen of the United States to depart from            or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United            States without a valid passport.             Sec. 53.2 -- Exceptions.             A U.S. citizen is not required to bear a valid passport to            enter or depart the United States:                o (a) When traveling directly between parts of the United                 States as defined in Sec. 50.1 of this chapter;                o (b) When traveling between the United States and any                 country, territory, island adjacent thereto in North,                 South, or Central America excluding Cuba; provided, that                 this exception is not applicable to any such person when                 proceeding to or arriving from a place outside the                 United States for which a valid passport is required                 under this part if such travel is accomplished within 60                 days of departure from the United States via any country                 or territory in North, South, or Central America or any

                 island adjacent thereto;                o (c) When traveling as a bona fide seaman or air crewman                 who is the bearer of record of a valid merchant mariner                 identification document or air crewman identification                 card;                o (d) When traveling as a member of the Armed Forces of                 the United States on active duty;                o (e) When he is under 21 years of age and is a member of                 the household of an official or employee for a foreign                 government or of the United Nations and is in possession                 of or included in a foreign passport;                o (f) When he is a child under 12 years of age and is                 included in the foreign passport of an alien parent;                 however, such child will be required to provide evidence                 of his U.S. citizenship when entering the United States;                o (g) When the citizen entering the United States presents                 a card of identity and registration issued by a consular                 office abroad to facilitate travel to the United States;                 or                o (h) When specifically authorized by the Secretary of                 State through appropriate official channels to depart                 from or enter the United States, as defined in Sec. 50.1                 of this chapter. The fee for a waiver of the passport                 requirement under this section shall be collected in the                 amount prescribed in the Schedule of Fees for Consular                 Services (22 CFR 22.1).             Sec. 53.3 -- Attempt of a citizen to enter without a valid            passport.             The appropriate officer at the port of entry shall report to            the Secretary of State for the purpose of invoking the waiver            provisions of Sec. 53.2(h), any citizen of the United States            who attempts to enter the United States contrary to the            provisions of this part.             Sec. 53.4 -- Optional use of a valid passport.             Nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent a citizen            from using a valid passport in a case in which that passport            is not required by this part 53, provided such travel is not            otherwise prohibited.          _____________________________________________________________ Supreme Court decisions on dual citizenship           + Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

             Afroyim was a Polish immigrant to the US, who moved to Israel            and became an Israeli citizen under the Israeli "Law of            Return." When the US State Department refused to renew his            passport (because he had voted in an Israeli election), he            sued; the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and            Afroyim won.             The basic point of Afroyim v. Rusk was that the 14th            Amendment to the US Constitution -- while originally intended            mainly to guarantee citizenship to freed Negro slaves and            their descendants -- had effectively elevated citizenship to            the status of a constitutionally protected right. Hence,            Congress had no right to pass a law saying that doing            such-and-so would deprive someone of his US citizenship            against his will.             Specifically, US laws mandating automatic loss of citizenship            for voting in a foreign election, working for a foreign            government, serving in a foreign army, or even swearing            allegiance to a foreign country were invalid; said laws must            provide for the possibility that someone could do one of            these things and nevertheless intend to retain his US            citizenship.             The Supreme Court noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had            already tried to confer citizenship on all persons born or            naturalized in the US. However, proponents of the 14th            Amendment had expressed fears that this provision could be            repealed by a later Congress, and so they insisted that the            new amendment contain its own citizenship clause that            Congress could not change later on.             The court also noted that Congress had rejected several            measures in the 19th century that would have imposed            involuntary loss of citizenship in various situations.             Further, the court pointed to a proposed (but never ratified)            constitutional amendment, early in the 19th century, which            would have revoked the US citizenship of anyone who accepted            a foreign title or gift as evidence that Congress was not            believed to have the power to do such a thing via ordinary            legislation. (Incidentally, this is the same proposed            amendment which some foes of the federal income tax allege            was in fact duly ratified, but that news of its ratification            was suppressed by lawyers who feared their "foreign" title of            "Esquire" would result in the loss of their US citizenship            and their positions of power in the government.)             An earlier case -- Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958) --            in which the Supreme Court upheld loss of citizenship -- was            explicitly overruled by the court in the Afroyim case.             "Rusk" in this case, by the way, was Dean Rusk, who served as

            Secretary of State under President Johnson. The case got            before the Supreme Court in the first place because Afroyim            had appealed a decision against him by the State Department;            hence, the government official named in his suit was the            Secretary of State.           + Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)             Terrazas was a dual US/Mexican citizen by birth. When he            became an adult, he signed a document reaffirming his Mexican            citizenship (as required by Mexican law). This document            contained a clause renouncing his US citizenship.             When the State Department ruled Terrazas was no longer a US            citizen, he tried to argue in the courts that he hadn't            really meant to renounce his US citizenship, despite what was            on the Mexican document he had signed. The Supreme Court            disagreed and held Terrazas to the strict wording of the            Mexican document, which it concluded he (being fluent in            Spanish) had understood perfectly well at the time he had            signed it.             The basic point of Vance v. Terrazas was that the State            Department had the right to weigh the evidence for and            against someone's intent to give up his US citizenship, and            to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard (as in a            lawsuit), rather than a "clear and convincing evidence"            standard (similar to a criminal case). The court also held            that a person's actions could be used as evidence of intent            with regard to loss of citizenship, not just his words.             "Vance" in this case was Cyrus Vance, who was Secretary of            State under President Carter. The reason Vance is listed            first in the citation of this case is that the lower court            (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) had ruled in Terrazas'            favor, and the government was appealing that ruling. Whenever            a case comes before the US Supreme Court, the first name            listed is always the "petitioner" -- i.e., the party which            lost in the lower court and appealed to the Supreme Court.             The Terrazas case seems to be less important now than it used            to be, by the way, because current State Department            guidelines on handling loss-of-citizenship cases generally            ignore renunciatory statements made as part of a "routine"            acquisition or affirmation of a foreign citizenship. For that            matter, I understand Terrazas himself eventually managed to            get his US citizenship reinstated via an administrative            procedure within the State Department.           + Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)             Mandoli was a dual US/Italian citizen by birth (born in the            US to Italian parents). He left the US as an infant and moved            to Italy with his parents. When he sought to return to the US

            in 1937, his claim to US citizenship was rejected because he            had failed to return promptly to the US upon reaching the age            of majority, and also because he had served briefly in the            Italian army in 1931.             The Supreme Court ruled that the law, as it then stood, did            not permit natural-born US citizens to be stripped of US            citizenship for failing to return to the US upon reaching            adulthood.             The court did not base its ruling in this case on any            overriding constitutional arguments. Rather, it examined the            legislative history of the relevant portions of US            citizenship law, and concluded that Congress had consciously            chosen to make these provisions applicable only to            naturalized US citizens.             Dean Acheson was Secretary of State during Truman's second            term.           + Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952)             This was a case where someone argued (unsuccessfully) that he            was not a US citizen. Kawakita was a dual US/Japanese citizen            (born in the US to Japanese parents). He was in Japan when            World War II broke out, and because of the war, he was unable            to return to the US. During the war, he actively supported            the Japanese cause and abused US prisoners of war who had            been forced to work under him. After the war, he returned to            the US on a US passport, and shortly thereafter he was            charged with treason.             Kawakita claimed that he had lost his US citizenship by            registering in Japan as a Japanese national, and as a result            he could not be found guilty of treason against the US.             However, the Supreme Court ruled that since Kawakita had dual            nationality by birth, when he registered himself as Japanese,            he was simply reaffirming an already existing fact and was            not actually acquiring Japanese citizenship or renouncing his            US citizenship.             The reason the respondent in this case was the United States,            rather than the Secretary of State at the time, is that the            case started as a criminal prosecution rather than as a            lawsuit.          _____________________________________________________________ State Department policies on dual citizenship           + Information on Dual Nationality (State Department leaflet)             The following is the text of a leaflet printed by the US

            Department of State in Washington, D.C., which was sent to me            in November 1994. It summarizes the issues pretty nicely.             Note that the kinds of concerns expressed over dual            citizenship have to do with problems dual citizens might have            in other countries and the difficulties US diplomats may have            trying to help dual US/other citizens abroad. There is no            suggestion that the US has any objections if someone wants to            keep both US citizenship and another citizenship.             INFORMATION ON DUAL NATIONALITY             WHAT IT IS             Dual nationality is the simultaneous possession of two            citizenships. The Supreme Court of the United States has            stated that dual nationality is "a status long recognized in            the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of            nationality in two countries and be subject to the            responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the            rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he            renounces the other", Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).            The concepts discussed in this leaflet apply also to persons            who have more than two nationalities.             HOW ACQUIRED             Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no            uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition            of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject,            and its nationality is conferred upon individuals on the            basis of its own independent domestic policy. Individuals may            have dual nationality not by choice but by automatic            operation of these different and sometimes conflicting laws.             The laws of the United States, no less than those of other            countries, contribute to the situation because they provide            for acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the United            States and also by birth abroad to an American, regardless of            the other nationalities which a person might acquire at            birth. For example, a child born abroad to U.S. citizens may            acquire at birth not only American citizenship but also the            nationality of the country in which it was born. Similarly, a            child born in the United States to foreigners may acquire at            birth both U.S. citizenship and a foreign nationality.             The laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition            of citizenship after birth, for example, by marriage. In            addition, some countries do not recognize naturalization in a            foreign state as grounds for loss of citizenship. A person            from one of those countries who is naturalized in the United            States keeps the nationality of the country of origin despite            the fact that one of the requirements for U.S. naturalization            is a renunciation of other nationalities.

             CURRENT LAW AND POLICY             The current nationality laws of the United States do not            specifically refer to dual nationality.             The automatic acquisition of retention of a foreign            nationality does not affect U.S. citizenship; however, under            limited circumstances, the acquisition of a foreign            nationality upon one's own application or the application of            a duly authorized agent may cause loss of U.S. citizenship            under Section 349(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality            Act [8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(1)]. In order for loss of nationality            to occur under Section 349(a)(1), it must be established that            the naturalization was obtained voluntarily by a person            eighteen years of age or older with the intention of            relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Such an intention may be            shown by the person's statements or conduct, Vance v.            Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), but in most cases it is            assumed that Americans who are naturalized in other countries            intend to keep their U.S. citizenship. As a result, they have            both nationalities. United States law does not contain any            provisions requiring U.S. citizens who are born with dual            nationality to choose one nationality or the other when they            become adults, Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952).             While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and            permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S.            Government does not endorse dual nationality as a matter of            policy because of the problems which it may cause. Claims of            other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place            them in situations where their obligations to one country are            in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their            dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide diplomatic and            consular protections to them when they are abroad.             ALLEGIANCE TO WHICH COUNTRY             It generally is considered that while dual nationals are in            the other country of which they are citizens that country has            a predominant claim on them.             Like Americans who possess only U.S. citizenship, dual            national U.S. citizens owe allegiance to the United States            and are obliged to obey its laws and regulations. Such            persons usually have certain obligations to the foreign            country as well. Although failure to fulfill such obligations            may have no adverse effect on dual nationals while in the            United States because the foreign country would have few            means to force compliance under those circumstances, dual            nationals might be forced to comply with those obligations or            pay a penalty if they go to the foreign country. In cases            where dual nationals encounter difficulty in a foreign            country of which they are citizens, the ability of U.S.

            Foreign Service posts to provide assistance may be quite            limited since many foreign countries may not recognize a dual            national's claim to U.S. citizenship.             WHICH PASSPORT TO USE             Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C.            1185] requires U.S. citizens to use U.S. passports when            entering or leaving the United States unless one of the            exceptions listed in Section 53.2 of Title 22 of the Code of            Federal Regulations applies. Dual nationals may be required            by the other country of which they are citizens to enter or            leave that country using its passport, but do not endanger            their U.S. citizenship by complying with such a requirement.             HOW TO GIVE UP DUAL NATIONALITY             Most countries have laws which specify how a citizen may lose            or divest citizenship. Generally, persons who do not wish to            maintain dual nationality may renounce the citizenship which            they do not want. Information on renouncing a foreign            nationality may be obtained from the foreign country's            Embassies and Consulates or from the appropriate governmental            agency in that country. Americans may renounce their U.S.            citizenship abroad pursuant to Section 349(a)(5) of the            Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(5)].            Information on renouncing U.S. citizenship may be obtained            from U.S. Embassies and Consulates and the Office of Citizens            Consular Services, Department of State, Washington, D.C.            20520.             For further information on dual nationality, see Marjorie M.            Whiteman's _Digest of International Law_ (Department of State            Publication 8290, released September 1967), Volume 8, pages            64-84.           + Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual            Nationality (State Department leaflet)             The following is the text of a leaflet printed by the US            Department of State in Washington, D.C., which was sent to me            in November 1994. It describes the State Department's current            guidelines for handling dual citizenship claims.             ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL            NATIONALITY             The Department of State is responsible for determining the            citizenship status of a person located outside the United            States or in connection with the application for a U.S.            passport while in the United States.             POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING STATUTES 

            Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as            amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of            citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with            the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated,            these acts include:               1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec.                 349(a)(1) INA);               2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration                 to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec.                 349(a)(2) INA);               3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign                 state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving                 as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the                 armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349(a)(3) INA);               4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a)                 one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a                 declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the                 position (Sec. 349(a)(4) INA);               5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S.                 consular officer outside the United States (Sec.                 349(a)(5) INA);               6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S.                 (but only "in time of war") (Sec. 349(a)(6) INA);               7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349(a)(7) INA).             ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE             As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of            U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the            intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department            has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on            the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United            States 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.             DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS            APPLICABLE             In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a            person who:               1. is naturalized in a foreign country;               2. takes a routine oath of allegiance; or 

              3. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign                 government             and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not            submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating            act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain            U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.             When such cases come to the attention of a U.S. consular            officer, the person concerned will be asked to complete a            questionnaire to ascertain his or her intent toward U.S.            citizenship. Unless the person affirmatively asserts in the            questionnaire that it was his or her intention to relinquish            U.S. citizenship, the consular officer will certify that it            was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship            and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S.            citizenship.             DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS            INAPPLICABLE             The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship            is not applicable when the individual:               1. formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular                 officer;               2. takes a policy level position in a foreign state;               3. is convicted of treason; or               4. performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute                 accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with                 retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a                 conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish                 U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)             Cases in categories 2, 3, and 4 will be developed carefully            by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's            intent toward U.S. citizenship.             PERSONS WHO WISH TO RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP             An individual who has performed any of the acts made            potentially expatriating by statute who wishes to lose U.S.            citizenship may do so by affirming in writing to a U.S.            consular officer that the act was performed with an intent to            relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, a person always has            the option of seeking to formally renounce U.S. citizenship            in accordance with Section 349(a)(5) INA.             APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE TO PAST CASES             The premise established by the administrative standard of

            evidence is applicable to cases adjudicated previously.            Persons who previously lost U.S. citizenship may wish to have            their cases reconsidered in light of this policy. A person            may initiate such a reconsideration by submitting a request            to the nearest U.S. consular officer or by writing directly            to:             Director, Office of Citizens Consular Services            (CA/OCS/CCS), Room 4811 NS            Department of State            Washington, D.C. 20520-4818             Each case will be reviewed on its own merits taking into            consideration, for example, statements made by the person at            the time of the potentially expatriating act.             DUAL NATIONALITY             When a person is naturalized in a foreign state (or otherwise            possesses another nationality) and is thereafter found not to            have lost U.S. citizenship the individual consequently may            possess dual nationality. It is prudent, however, to check            with authorities of the other country to see if dual            nationality is permissible under local law. the United States            does not favor dual nationality as a matter of policy, but            does recognize its existence in individual cases.             QUESTIONS             For further information, please contact the appropriate            geographic division of the Office of Citizens Consular            Services:                o Europe and Canada Division: (202) 647-3445                o Inter-American Division: (202) 647-3712                o East Asia and Pacific Division: (202) 647-3675                o Near Eastern and South Asia Division: (202) 647-3926                o Africa Division: (202) 647-4994           + Foreign Military Service (State Department leaflet)             The following is the text of a leaflet printed by the US            Department of State in Washington, D.C., which was sent to me            in November 1994.             FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE             An American who is a resident or citizen of a foreign country            may be subject to compulsory military service in that            country. Although the United States opposes service by U.S.

            citizens in foreign armed forces, there is little that we can            do to prevent it since each sovereign country has the right            to make its own laws on military service and apply them as it            sees fit to its citizens and residents.             Such participation by citizens of our country in the internal            affairs of foreign countries can cause problems in the            conduct of our foreign relations and may involve U.S.            citizens in hostilities against countries with which we are            at peace. For this reason, U.S. citizens facing the            possibility of foreign military service should do what is            legally possible to avoid such service.             Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of            foreign military service originating within the United            States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of            Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S., 163            U.S. 632 (1985), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court            ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an            individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a            foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or            hired in the United States, a violation may have occurred.            The prosecution of person who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960            is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.             Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a            foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law,            it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the            Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which            provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American            voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S.            citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged            in hostilities against the United States or serves in the            armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or            non-commissioned officer.             Loss of U.S. nationality was almost immediate consequences            [sic] of foreign military service and the other acts listed            in Section 349(a) until 1967 when the Supreme Court handed            down its decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253. In that            decision, the court declared unconstitutional the provisions            of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by            voting in a foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court            indicated that a U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to            remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that            citizenship."             Further confirmation of the necessity to establish the            citizen's intent to relinquish nationality before            expatriation will result came in the opinion in Vance v.            Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The Court stated that            "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than            on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct."            The Court also indicated that a person's intention to

            relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by statements or            actions.             Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause            loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish            citizenship normally is lacking. Service as a high-ranking            officer, particularly in a policy-making position, could be            viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S.            citizenship.             Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality            Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under            the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the            provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of            attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to            United States citizenship in the manner prescribed by the            Secretary of State.          _____________________________________________________________     Please send comments to Rich Wales

Subject: LONG: Dual Citizenship FAQ (part 1 of 2) (fwd)

From: Tery Griffin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To: CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:20:41 -0500

Content-Type: text/plain

Parts/Attachments: text/plain (929 lines)

Many people have asked for this information, so I'm just forwarding it tothe list. ---Tery ---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:29:07 ESTFrom: Rich Wales <[log in to unmask]>To: [log in to unmask]Subject: Dual Citizenship FAQ (part 1 of 2)                               DUAL CITIZENSHIP FAQ:                    DUAL NATIONALITY AND UNITED STATES LAW Part 1 of 2: Overview   BY RICH WALES   LAST REVISED: MON FEB 6 17:01:33 EST 1995

      _________________________________________________________________ Table of contents      * Introduction      * Obtaining a copy of this document      * About the author      * Disclaimers      * Highlights      * Important recent changes to this FAQ      * Questions and answers on dual US/other citizenship         1. Is dual citizenship possible?         2. Doesn't US law forbid dual citizenship?         3. US citizenship and moving abroad         4. US Constitution and dual citizenship         5. Renunciation in US naturalization oath         6. Special US/Israeli dual citizenship deal?         7. Foreign military service         8. Going back to visit the old country         9. Old citizenship after US naturalization        10. Losing US citizenship        11. Sensible precautions to take        12. Having two passports at once        13. Does the US "recognize" dual citizenship?        14. Children born abroad to US citizens        15. Reinstatement of lost US citizenship        16. Ethics of dual citizenship        17. Are things likely to change?      * United States law on dual citizenship (in Part 2)      * Supreme Court decisions on dual citizenship (in Part 2)      * State Department policies on dual citizenship (in Part 2)      _________________________________________________________________ Introduction    Here is a bunch of information regarding the current situation in   United States law regarding dual citizenship. Although I am not a   lawyer, I have checked this question out quite thoroughly in recent   years and am fairly confident that this material is accurate.   (Hopefully there aren't any typos!)      _________________________________________________________________ 

Obtaining a copy of this document    Owing to its size, the Dual Citizenship FAQ has been split into two   parts. Part 1 contains an overview of the subject, with answers to   frequently asked questions. Part 2 contains references to laws, court   cases, and administrative policies on dual citizenship.    The latest version of the Dual Citizenship FAQ can be found as   http://www.mks.com/~richw/dualcit.html and   http://www.mks.com/~richw/dualcit2.html on the World Wide Web.    A plain text version can be had as ftp://ftp.mks.com/usr/richw/dualcit   and ftp://ftp.mks.com/usr/richw/dualcit2 via anonymous FTP (i.e., FTP   to ftp.mks.com and get the file named /usr/richw/dualcit). Note that   the plain text version might not be as up to date as the hypertext   version on the World Wide Web.    If you don't have Internet access, you can get a copy of the plain   text version by sending e-mail to me ([log in to unmask]) with "Subject:   send dualcit" in the header (not the body) of your message. Both parts   of the FAQ (plain text form) will be mailed to you.      _________________________________________________________________ About the author    I am a US citizen, born in California in 1952. My wife, baby daughter,   and I moved to Canada in late 1992 as landed immigrants (permanent   resident aliens). We will be eligible to become Canadian citizens in   early 1996; and under current US and Canadian law, we will then have   dual US/Canadian citizenship. Our baby son was born in Canada in 1993   and is a dual citizen by birth, with two passports.    I have been researching the dual citizenship issue in my spare time   since 1986.      _________________________________________________________________ Disclaimers    I am not a lawyer, a professional immigration consultant, or a   government official. Nothing in this document should be considered   "legal advice" in any jurisdiction.    Unless indicated otherwise, any opinions expressed in this document   are mine alone. In particular, this material does not in any way   express the opinions of my employer, Mortice Kern Systems Inc. of   Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.    If you are in a dual citizenship situation, or are contemplating such   a move, you should consider discussing your plans with an attorney who   is knowledgeable in this particular aspect of immigration law. At the   very least, I would encourage you to verify anything you may read here

   with authoritative sources.      _________________________________________________________________ Highlights    It is possible to have/acquire/keep dual US/other citizenship as far   as current US law and policy is concerned. Anything different you   might have heard, or thought you knew, about US law is obsolete or   just plain wrong.    Even people who become naturalized US citizens can frequently retain   their old citizenship, despite the part of the US naturalization oath   in which one renounces prior allegiances.    In many cases, people who were stripped of their US citizenship in the   past can have it restored now by contacting the State Department or a   US consulate.      _________________________________________________________________ Important recent changes to this FAQ    The FAQ has been reformatted into HTML (World Wide Web) format. A   plain text version is still available.    The requirement that a new US citizen must maintain his/her permanent   residence in the US for at least one year following naturalization --   along with the requirement that an applicant for US citizenship must   intend to reside permanently in the US -- was repealed by Congress in   October 1994.    Citations and descriptions have been added for some older Supreme   Court cases on dual citizenship.      _________________________________________________________________ Questions and answers on dual US/other citizenship     1. Is it possible to be a dual citizen of the United States of       America and another country?        YES -- in many cases.        If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else       became a citizen of another country after already having US       citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any       laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US       citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law       unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for       life.        The US State Department -- traditionally quite combative in its       handling of dual-citizenship claims -- has changed the way it

       handles these cases in recent years, and it now appears to be much       easier to retain such a status without a fight than it used to be.        The situation is slightly less clear for someone who becomes a US       citizen via naturalization and still wishes to take advantage of       his old citizenship. People who go through US naturalization are       required to state under oath that they are renouncing their old       citizenship, and conduct inconsistent with this pledge could       theoretically lead to loss of one's US status.        However, it appears that the State Department is no longer       actively pursuing cases of this nature in most situations. In       particular, when a new American's "old country" refuses to       recognize the US naturalization oath (with its renunciatory       clause) as having any effect on its own citizenship laws, and       insists that the person in question must continue to deal with his       old country as a citizen thereof (e.g., by using that country's       passport when travelling there to visit), the US State Department       no longer seems to mind.        Similarly, the State Department doesn't seem to be doing anything       any more to people who renounce their US citizenship as part of a       foreign country's "routine" naturalization procedure (in a manner       similar to what the US makes its new citizens do). However, if the       other country in question requires its newly naturalized citizens       to approach officials of their old countries to revoke their       previous status, one will generally not be able to remain a       citizen both of that country and the US.     2. But I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen --       that if you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give       up the other citizenship when you came of age, or else you'd lose       your US status. And that if you became a citizen of another       country, you'd automatically lose your US citizenship. So what's       all this talk about dual citizenship?        It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold       dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual       citizenship from birth, in which case two 1952 Supreme Court       rulings -- Mandoli v. Acheson and Kawakita v. U.S. -- permitted       you to keep both).        However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck       down in 1967 by the US Supreme Court. The court's decision in this       case, Afroyim v. Rusk as well as a second case in 1980, Vance v.       Terrazas eventually made its way explicitly into the statute       books in 1986; up till that time, the old laws were still on the       books, but the State Department was effectively under court order       to ignore them.        Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent to       people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The       Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new       citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US

       naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is       apparently no longer doing anything about situations where a new       citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation.        The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today       is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy       because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the       existence of dual citizenship is recognized in individual cases.       That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen,       they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are       a dual citizen, they'll usually say it's OK.     3. Don't you lose your US citizenship if you move to another country       with the intent of living there for an extended period of time?        No.        I used to think this was a totally off-the-wall question and that       everyone knew the answer -- until I told people I was about to       move to Canada, whereupon probably at least half a dozen of my       friends asked me if this meant I would have to give up my US       citizenship.        It was once the case that a naturalized US citizen could lose his       citizenship by remaining outside the US for an extended period.       However, this provision was invalidated by the Supreme Court in       its 1967 Afroyim ruling and was repealed in 1986.        More recently, a naturalized citizen could lose his citizenship by       setting up a permanent residence abroad within one year following       US naturalization. This provision was repealed by Congress in       October 1994, however, and no longer applies.     4. Doesn't the US Constitution forbid dual citizenship?        No. The Constitution says nothing explicitly about dual       citizenship at all. Indeed, as is mentioned below in conjunction       with the Afroyim case, the Supreme Court used an argument derived       from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to affirm a right to       dual citizenship.     5. If dual citizenship is legal now, then why do people who want to       become naturalized US citizens still have to take an oath giving       up their old citizenship?        The Afroyim Supreme Court ruling, which paved the way for dual       citizenship after foreign naturalization, dealt specifically with       the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to people "born or       naturalized in the United States." The court did not prohibit       Congress from establishing prerequisites to naturalization. Hence,       it is still OK for Congress to require prospective new citizens to       be willing to renounce their old citizenships.        Incidentally, this asymmetry may explain why so many immigration

       lawyers in the US are seemingly unaware of the laws permitting       dual US/other citizenship. They spend all their time dealing with       people who want to become US citizens or permanent residents --       and since the US requires a renunciation of prior citizenship as       part of the naturalization procedure, these lawyers may       incorrectly assume the law works the same both ways and thus       misadvise someone who is already a US citizen that he can't become       a dual citizen. Be very mindful of this point if you look for a       lawyer to discuss a dual citizenship situation with; if you find       one who insists it's flatly impossible because US law prohibits       it, keep looking.        Also, many other countries do not recognize the act of renouncing       their citizenship as part of US naturalization, so a new US       citizen may very likely still be considered a citizen by his old       country. This is apparently a big reason why the State Department       isn't going after people any more, as a rule, when they continue       to let their old country treat them as a citizen despite US       naturalization.     6. I've heard that the US has a special agreement with Israel       permitting people to be dual US/Israeli citizens. Is this true?        No. It just happens that Israeli citizenship law does not require       renunciation of one's old citizenship in order to become a citizen       of Israel.        In this regard, Israel is really treated no differently than       Canada, the UK, France, or other countries which permit people to       become citizens without giving up their old status.        As best I have been able to determine, the US does not have any       sort of dual-citizenship treaty with any other country. Dual       citizenship arises, not out of explicit bilateral agreements       between nations, but because each country makes its own laws       respecting who is or is not its citizen, often without regard for       whether a given person is considered a citizen by more than one       country at once.     7. But doesn't serving in a foreign army result in automatic loss of       US citizenship?        No. As explained above, essentially nothing causes automatic loss       of US citizenship any more. If you join a foreign army, you can       lose your US citizenship if you acted with the intent of giving it       up. Otherwise, you can still keep it.        Getting back to the US/Israeli citizenship question, the fact that       most dual US/Israeli citizens manage to satisfy their obligation       under Israeli law to serve in the Israeli army (IDF) without       losing their US status is not the result of any special treaty       between the US and Israel.     8. If I become a US citizen and renounce my old citizenship as part

       of the naturalization ceremony, can I still run into problems       (such as getting drafted or not being allowed to leave) if I go       back to visit my old country?        Possibly.        Many countries do not recognize the renunciation of old       citizenship which is part of the US naturalization ceremony.       Canada, for example, requires that someone who wants to give up       his citizenship has to go to a Canadian embassy or consulate and       sign a special form in the presence of Canadian officials.        Other countries may require an applicant for renunciation of       citizenship to show he has sold or surrendered all his assets in       the country, has fulfilled his military service obligations, etc.       In some cases, renunciation of one's old citizenship is simply       impossible, because the old country either forbids it altogether       or imposes unreasonable conditions on those wishing to sever their       citizenship ties.        In general, you should assume that your old country does not       acknowledge your US naturalization in any way, and that they still       consider you to be one of their citizens just as before, unless       you have talked to that country's consular officials and       determined otherwise.        So, even after becoming a naturalized US citizen, you should still       check carefully with diplomatic officials both of the US and of       the "old country" before going back for a visit. If you get       arrested there for draft evasion, for voicing opinions about their       government while you were in the US which are considered taboo in       the old country, or for whatever other reason -- or if you find       yourself forced into their armed forces -- you may very well find       that the US can't help you too much, because the other country       will insist you're one of their own citizens and that the matter       is therefore none of the US's $@&%# business. Cuba, for instance,       is notorious for taking this position with expatriate Cubans who       become US citizens and then go back to Cuba for a visit.        This same word of caution may also apply to people who were born       in the US, but whose parents (or even grandparents) came from       somewhere else. Many countries have laws conferring citizenship on       the basis of the citizenship of one's parents or grandparents       (even the US has a limited law of this kind). I personally knew       someone a few years ago who got into trouble in South Korea       because his father was born in Korea; even though my friend was       born in the US and had never claimed or believed himself to be a       Korean citizen, he had to cut short his visit to his ancestral       homeland in order to avoid being drafted into the South Korean       army.        In general, before visiting any country which might possibly have       any reason to claim you as its citizen (due to circumstances of       your birth or naturalization, or that of any of your relatives),

       it is a good idea to check both with that country's consular       officials and the US State Department. And don't accept any travel       documents identifying you as a citizen of the other country,       unless it is your true intent to accept such status.        While we're on the subject of getting into legal trouble in       another country, it should probably be noted that even if your old       country no longer considers you one of its citizens, you could       still encounter problems if you left "illegally" and then return.       In such a situation, you obviously should not assume that all will       be forgiven simply because you are no longer a citizen of your old       country. Before making a visit under such circumstances, by all       means check with US State Department officials.     9. I've heard of people who became US citizens via naturalization but       then claim they still have their old citizenship too. How is this       possible?        There are several possible scenarios.        One is that the person's old country may not recognize the       renunciation of citizenship he made as part of US naturalization       (see the previous question). Such a person could be a dual       citizen, as it were, in spite of himself.        Or, the person might have become a US citizen as a child (i.e.,       naturalized along with his parents) -- in which case he would       never have had to take the oath and would not have had to renounce       his old citizenship (even though his parents did). A person in       this kind of situation can exercise his dual status freely,       provided the other country doesn't require him to go to a US       consulate and renounce his US citizenship when he becomes an       adult.        Finally, some people who become US citizens hope to take advantage       of the fact that the US didn't make them actually go to their old       country's consulate and get their citizenship revoked (all they       were required to do was make a renunciatory statement as part of       the US naturalization oath) -- and so they continue to exercise       rights of citizenship in the old country as though nothing had       happened. The US State Department used to take a dim view of such       behavior if they found out about it, and people acting in this way       were known to lose their US citizenship on the grounds that their       pledge to renounce their prior status had evidently not been made       in good faith. Now, though, the State Department seems to be much       less aggressive about pursuing this kind of case.    10. If I am a dual US/other citizen, is there any way I can lose my US       citizenship?        Although current US law forbids the government from taking your       citizenship from you against your will, it does permit you to give       it up voluntarily. This has placed the US State Department in the       complex position of determining whether someone who claims to be a

       US citizen has, in fact, given up that citizenship by his       voluntary statements or actions.        In the early days of court-mandated acceptance of dual       citizenship, State Department officials (hostile as most of them       were to the whole idea of dual citizenship) tended to play       hardball with people who claimed dual status, looking for almost       any excuse to revoke US citizenship, and frequently ruling that a       person had voluntarily forsaken his US ties despite steadfast       protestations to the contrary.        Around 1990, though, the State Department adopted a new set of       guidelines for handling dual citizenship cases which are much       more streamlined and liberal than before.        The State Department now says that it will assume that a US       citizen intends to retain his US citizenship if he:          1. is naturalized in a foreign country;          2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign country; or          3. accepts foreign government employment that is of a            "non-policy-level" nature.        A person in such a situation will eventually be asked to fill out       a State Department questionnaire on the subject (generally the       next time he/she applies for renewal of a passport); but unless       he/she affirmatively intended to give up US citizenship, no action       will be taken to revoke said citizenship.        Apparently, a "routine oath of allegiance" is no longer taken as       firm evidence of intent to give up US citizenship, even if said       oath includes a renunciation of US citizenship. This represents a       dramatic reversal of previous US policy; it used to be that any       such statement was taken rigidly at face value (as in the Supreme       Court's 1980 Terrazas decision).        This presumption that someone intends to keep US citizenship does       not apply to a person who:          1. takes a "policy-level" position in a foreign country;          2. is convicted of treason against the US; or          3. engages in "conduct which is so inconsistent with retention            of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that [he]            intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship."        The State Department says that cases of these kinds will be       examined carefully to determine the person's intent. They also say       that cases falling under the last criterion mentioned above       (conduct wholly inconsistent with intent to keep US citizenship)       are presumed to be "very rare."

    11. So if I'm a dual US/other citizen, I don't need to worry at all       any more about whether something I do or say might come back to       haunt me?        Even though the US government's attitude on this subject seems to       have improved dramatically in recent years, it is probably still a       good idea to keep a few things in mind if you are a dual citizen       or are contemplating becoming one.        One reason for such caution is that the new State Department       guidelines are the result of an administrative policy, not an       act of Congress. In theory, a future administration could revoke       the new policy at any time by the stroke of a pen -- though I am       not aware of any suggestion that this is likely to happen.        Still, I would propose the following safety measures for your       consideration in order to stay as far away from the edge of the       figurative cliff as possible.           + If you haven't acquired the second citizenship yet,            double-check with officials of the other country to make sure            they are not going to require you to renounce prior            citizenships in general, or your US citizenship in            particular. If they are, then you might not be able to get            away with keeping your US status if the State Department            changes its new policy in the future.           + The State Department now says that you don't need to inform            them before or right after becoming a citizen of another            country; that they'll presume you intended to keep your US            citizenship; and that, if you tell them later on that you            intended to keep your US status, they will usually take you            at your word.             Still, it might be wise to put your intentions clearly on            record. For example, you might consider making out a written            declaration on the subject; sign it in the presence of two or            three witnesses; have it notarized; and then keep it in your            safe deposit box or other secure place. Should the US            consulate express doubt later on as to your intentions, this            statement can't hurt and might possibly help.             In some cases, it might be advisable to inform the State            Department of your actions and intentions, even though they            say this is not necessary. Many countries routinely notify            the "old countries" of their new citizens regarding their            naturalization. In some cases, your "new country" might even            confiscate your US passport and return it to the State            Department with a note claiming that you have renounced your            US citizenship. In such a situation, you would probably do            well to draft a carefully worded letter to the State            Department -- in consultation with a lawyer -- to make your            true intentions crystal clear.

           + Keep your US passport renewed. When you apply for a new            passport, the proper way to deal with the part of the            application that starts with "I have not, since acquiring            United States citizenship" is to line out whatever part does            not apply to you and attach a letter of explanation. (For            example, line out the part claiming you have not been            naturalized or taken an oath of allegiance to a foreign            country, and include a letter explaining when and where you            in fact did this.) I believe you'll have to do this each and            every time you subsequently renew your passport for the rest            of your life; but at least you only have to do it once every            ten years.           + Whenever you enter the US, always identify yourself as a US            citizen and always use your US passport -- even if this means            you carry both passports with you when you travel. Don't make            things complicated by going into your dual status with US            immigration officials. If you hold US citizenship, that's all            they need to be concerned about in order to determine that            you have a right to enter the US.             Similarly, when you leave the US, tell the airline (when            checking in for your flight) that you're a US citizen, show            them your US passport first, and show your other passport            only if necessary to prove you don't need a visa for your            trip. If the airline people try to raise a fuss because they            don't think dual citizenship is possible, ask to speak with a            supervisor.             Note that a US citizen is generally required by US law to be            in possession of a US passport when leaving or entering the            US; see Title 22, Section 53 of the Code of Federal            Regulations (22 CFR 53). This requirement does not apply when            entering the US from Canada, Mexico, or Caribbean countries            (other than Cuba); however, even in those cases, proof of            one's identity and one's US citizenship is still required,            and a passport is probably the best such proof.             Failure to produce a US passport (or, where permitted, other            proof of US citizenship) when entering the US can result in a            fine (currently US$100), even if you can provide proof of            foreign citizenship.           + Always remember to mention your US citizenship on any form            from the other country (e.g., passport application) which            asks if you are a dual citizen.             Back in the early 1980's, there was at least one case in            which a woman with dual US/Canadian citizenship ended up            losing her US status in part because she had applied for a            Canadian passport and answered "no" to a question about being            a citizen of any country other than Canada. (Possibly as a            result of this or similar incidents, Canada has since revised

            its passport application form; it now asks if the applicant            is or has ever been a citizen of any other country.)           + Do other things a US citizen living abroad is expected to do            -- such as filing a US tax return every year (even if the            various exclusions for foreign income and/or foreign tax mean            you don't owe Uncle Sam anything); reporting your address to            the nearest US embassy or consulate; and registering your            children born abroad with the US embassy or consulate (since            in most cases they will automatically have US citizenship            because of you; see below for more info on this).        Again, the above things are not "legal requirements" for retaining       dual citizenship. However, if you do these things conscientiously,       the chances are much less that you'll ever find the State       Department seriously pursuing a loss-of-citizenship proceeding       against you, even if their current liberal policies should change       for the worse in the future.    12. But it's against the law to have more than one passport, isn't it?        Three comments.           + US law forbids a US citizen to possess two valid, unexpired            US passports at the same time. There is, however, nothing            in US law forbidding a US citizen to possess both a US            passport and a foreign passport -- provided, of course, that            the person really is a citizen of both countries.           + Now, of course, it is possible that the other country in            question may have objections to multiple passports. This is            especially likely in cases where the other country does not            permit dual citizenship -- and sometimes it could result in            intractable situations, especially when children are involved            (owing in part to the fact that US law makes no specific            provisions for renunciation of US citizenship by children            under 18).             Take India, for example. A child born in the US to citizens            of India is considered an Indian citizen under Indian law;            and in order to enter India, he/she must have an Indian            passport (or be listed in a parent's Indian passport). But            the child in this case would also be considered a US citizen            under US law, and must therefore have a US passport in order            to enter the US.             Indian law, I am told, does not permit dual Indian/other            citizenship and forbids an Indian citizen to possess or use a            passport from any other country but India. Further, in order            to get an Indian passport for a child (or have him/her listed            in a parent's Indian passport), I have been told that the            parent submitting the application must tell India that he/she            is renouncing the child's claim to any other citizenship --            an action which cannot have any effect whatsoever under US

            law.             Under current US passport regulations in 22 CFR 53, a dual            US/Indian child under age 12 could legally return to the US            from a visit to India by (1) being listed in a parent's            Indian passport and (2) presenting a US birth certificate or            other proof of US citizenship to US immigration officials.             However, once the child reaches age 12, US and Indian law            would be at an impasse in such a situation: US law demands            that the child must have a US passport, while Indian law            demands that the child must not have a US passport.             The only solution would seem to be for the family to be            prepared to pay the $100 "waiver fee" (i.e., fine) when an            older child returns to the US from India. Even this might not            work -- because without either a US passport or a visa, few            (if any) airlines in India will permit a traveller to board a            US-bound flight -- and if a child was born in the US, US            consular officials will almost certainly refuse to issue him            a visa, on the grounds that he doesn't need one because he is            a US citizen.           + Even when possession of multiple passports is technically            legal, it should be kept in mind that the border officials of            some countries (perhaps even US officials) may not understand            this fact and might easily conclude that a traveller found to            be carrying more than one passport is "obviously" planning to            engage in some sort of criminal activity.             Hence, it is probably advisable not to travel with more than            one passport at a time if at all possible. Of course, if your            itinerary involves stops in both of your countries of            citizenship, you may not have a choice, since each country            will most likely require you to present one of its own            passports when you enter.    13. I was recently told by a US customs official that the US doesn't       "recognize" dual citizenship. What gives?        US citizenship law is primarily concerned with whether or not a       given person holds US citizenship. If a person is a US citizen and       is currently within the jurisdiction of the US, any other       citizenship(s) he or she may hold are really not relevant in US       law.        A "dual citizen" has no special status in the US by virtue of       holding citizenship in some other country too. In particular, if       you are a dual citizen and get into some kind of legal trouble       while in the US, you should not expect the US to acknowledge any       efforts by consular officials of your other country of citizenship       to intervene in your behalf.        Also, when a "dual citizen" enters the US, he/she is expected to

       identify himself to US immigration and customs officials as a US       citizen (not as a citizen of some other country) -- and in cases       where a passport is required to enter the US, a dual citizen is       expected to enter on a US passport, just like any other US citizen       (see above).        I've heard of recent cases where dual US/other citizens briefly       got into sticky situations while entering the US, when they       attempted to identify themselves either as "dual" citizens or as       citizens of some other country. In former times (before the latest       round of State Department policy reforms), attempting to enter the       US on a foreign passport could even be used as "evidence" of       intent to relinquish US citizenship. Although this apparently       isn't a danger any more, the best thing to do is probably to make       life simple and assert only your US citizenship rights when       entering the US.        Remember that US immigration officers are primarily interested in       determining whether a person wishing to enter the US should be let       in. If you hold US citizenship, then you have a legal right to       enter and remain in the US. Holding some other citizenship as well       as US citizenship is completely irrelevant in this case, and if       you make an issue of holding a second citizenship, you're just       making it more likely that US officials will think something is       amiss.    14. My son/daughter was born overseas. Can he/she become a US citizen?        In many/most cases, a child born outside the US to a US citizen or       citizens is a US citizen by birth (and, in the opinions of most       legal scholars, qualifies as a "natural born" citizen eligible to       become President or Vice-President).        So the question is not whether the child can "become" a US       citizen, but rather how the parents can go about documenting the       fact of the child's citizenship.        The rules on US citizenship for children born outside the US       depend on when the child was born, whether one or both parents are       US citizens, and how long each parent lived in the US prior (not       necessarily immediately prior) to the child's birth. Check with a       US consulate for an exact interpretation of the rules with regard       to a specific situation; however, here's a summary of the rules as       they pertain to children born now or in the recent past.        For children born abroad to two US citizens, at least one of the       parents must have "resided" in the US at some time in his or her       life, prior to the child's birth. Judging by what I was told in       early 1994 by the US consulate in Toronto when I applied to have       my son (born here in Canada) registered as a US citizen,       "residence" in the US seems to be defined as physical presence in       the US for a total of at least one year prior to the child's       birth. 

       For children born abroad since November 1986 to one US citizen and       one non-citizen, the American parent must have been physically       present in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the       birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this       five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14       (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five,       then left the country never to return). Prior to November 1986,       the minimum requirement was ten years; check with a US embassy or       consulate to be certain regarding your own child's situation. And       again, it is possible to combine multiple separate periods of       physical presence in the US to reach the required figures.        Time spent outside the US in the armed forces or in certain kinds       of government employment (or as the dependent of someone serving       in such a capacity) are treated the same as time spent in the US       for purposes of qualifying to pass along US citizenship to one's       children.        These rules are designed to prevent the proliferation of       generation after generation of "Americans" who would be citizens       by descent without ever having set foot in the US.        An American who has a child born outside the US should contact the       nearest US embassy or consulate as soon as possible, to request an       application for a "consular report of birth abroad." This form       needs to be filled out by both parents and returned with payment       (currently US$10 or the local equivalent, money order or cash       only, personal checks not accepted) and supporting documents       including parents' birth certificates, marriage certificate,       passports, and the child's own birth certificate. For the       supporting documents to be returned, you must enclose sufficient       local postage for registered mail (ask the consulate for the       required amount), or else bring everything in person to the       consulate (in which case they will prepare the certificate while       you wait; expect the process to take about an hour).        Note, once again, that a child born abroad under these       circumstances is a US citizen by birth (in addition to possibly       being a citizen of the country of birth). The "consular report of       birth abroad" is not a bestowal of US citizenship, but simply an       acknowledgment of same.    15. I lost my US citizenship some years ago after I became a citizen       of another country. I told the people at the US consulate that I       intended to remain a dual citizen, but they wouldn't listen. I       think I got a raw deal. Is there any way I can get my US       citizenship back now?        Yes. The State Department info on dual citizenship cases says that       the current guidelines for ascertaining intent to keep US       citizenship are applicable retroactively to past cases, and it       explicitly says that "persons who previously lost US citizenship       may wish to have their cases reconsidered in light of this       policy."

        To initiate such reconsideration, contact the nearest US embassy       or consulate, or write the State Department at the following       address:        Director       Office of Citizens Consular Services (CA/OCS/CCS)       Room 4811 NS       Department of State       Washington, DC 20520-4818        If your situation is not straightforward, you may wish to consult       a lawyer before doing this. But if the other country didn't       require you to swear or sign away your US citizenship, and if you       told the State Department you intended to keep it, and if they       revoked your US status anyway, my impression is that all you need       to do is write them and ask them to reconsider.        Given the lax attitude the State Department is taking nowadays       toward renunciatory declarations in foreign naturalization oaths,       you might even be in luck if you can convince them that you would       rather not have made that declaration, but saw no way out of it       because (1) you felt circumstances required you to get a foreign       country's citizenship and (2) taking a renunciatory oath was the       only way you could get it.        A similar line of argument might also work if you asked a US       consulate if dual citizenship was possible, were told it was not,       but decided to go ahead and become a citizen of some other country       anyway because you felt you "needed" to. But in such cases, a       consultation with a lawyer before approaching US officials would       probably be a wise move.        I have personally exchanged e-mail with someone who successfully       regained his US citizenship via this new procedure. He requested       reinstatement in late 1992, and the State Department notified him       that his US status had been restored in early 1994. His US       citizenship had been revoked in the late 1970's after he became a       Canadian citizen.    16. Isn't there something inherently unethical about being a dual       citizen? I mean, how can you be a loyal American and at the same       time owe allegiance to another country? "No man can serve two       masters", and all that.        This is a question of political philosophy, which I won't presume       to argue. The fact remains, though, that the Supreme Court has       ruled dual citizenship is legal -- and Congress has amended the       Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect that reality -- and the       State Department now finally appears to be at peace with the       concept as well -- so it's now a firmly entrenched part of the law       of the land.    17. How likely is it that the Supreme Court will reverse its earlier

       decisions and once again ban dual citizenship? Or that the State       Department will backtrack on its recent liberalization of the       guidelines for dual citizenship and loss of citizenship?        Since the Afroyim and Terrazas decisions have now been written       into law by Congress, the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to       reverse its earlier stance. In order for dual citizenship to again       become impossible in the US, it is my personal opinion that the       following steps would have to occur:           + Congress would have to change the law back (in defiance of            the Afroyim and Terrazas rulings).           + The State Department would have to start stripping dual            citizens of US citizenship (again in defiance of the Supreme            Court rulings).           + At least one such case would have to make it all the way to            the Supreme Court (after rulings in lower courts --            presumably in favor of the affected individual, since lower            courts would be bound by the earlier Supreme Court decisions            -- had been appealed by the government).           + The Supreme Court would then have to decide to toss out its            earlier rulings (particularly in the Afroyim case) and decide            that Congress did have authority to ban dual citizenship            after all.        Don't hold your breath.        While the new State Department guidelines are purely       administrative regulations and could in theory be changed at any       time without any Congressional action, I am not aware of any move       to do this. Further, the fact that the new rules go so far as to       permit review of old cases and restoration of citizenship on the       basis of the new rules strongly suggests to me that no abrupt       reversal is planned. I haven't heard anything that would suggest       the Clinton administration is at all inclined to curb dual       citizenship. There's probably no need to worry.      _________________________________________________________________    Part 2 of this FAQ contains references to laws, court cases, and   administrative policies on dual citizenship.      _________________________________________________________________     Please send comments to Rich Wales