Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FAQ On Dual Citizenship, 1995
FAQ On Dual Citizenship, 1995
FAQ On Dual Citizenship, 1995
BY RICH WALES
_________________________________________________________________
Table of contents
* Disclaimers
_________________________________________________________________
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.
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
_________________________________________________________________
United States law on dual citizenship
* Acquisition of citizenship
* Loss of citizenship
+ (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:--
* US passport regulations
_____________________________________________________________
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repealed by a later Congress, and so they insisted that the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 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.
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.
_____________________________________________________________
WHAT IT IS
HOW ACQUIRED
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.
3. is convicted of treason; or
DUAL NATIONALITY
QUESTIONS
_____________________________________________________________
Many people have asked for this information, so I'm just forwarding it to
thelist. ---Tery
Part 1 of 2: Overview
BY RICH WALES
LAST REVISED: MON FEB 6 17:01:33 EST 1995
_________________________________________________________________
Table of contents
* Introduction
* Disclaimers
* Highlights
_________________________________________________________________
Introduction
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.
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
_________________________________________________________________
Highlights
_________________________________________________________________
The FAQ has been reformatted into HTML (World Wide Web) format. A
plain text version is still available.
Citations and descriptions have been added for some older Supreme
Court cases on dual citizenship.
_________________________________________________________________
No.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Possibly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
Director
Office of Citizens Consular Services (CA/OCS/CCS)
Room 4811 NS
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520-4818
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:
+ 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.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________