Mike

"Stephen Gallagher" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > > Thanks a lot for all your responses. It's a quite important subject to
me as
    > > there are some important reasons for me to become US citizen (most
notabely
    > > that I can vote but also additional protection). On the other hand I am
    > > somewhat worried about taking this step because 1. I do not want to give
up
    > > my current citizenship and 2. I don't want to take the risk that I might
get
    > > deported because I did not even attempt to revoke my previous
citizenship.
    > > From what you write it seems unlikely that the later would happen unless
I
    > > get into some serious trouble. I guess in that case a judge could argue
that
    > > I never had the attention to revoke my citizenship so I very clearly
acted
    > > against my oath. It could be argued that the US does not enforce
revoking a
    > > previous citizenship because this is not possible for some countries.
But
    > > for countries where it is possible the naturalized person was required
to
    > > revoke the citizenship. Obviously I do belong in the later category
which
    > > does worry me. If I could find some ruling that would verify that this
is
    > > not a problem I would feel much better.
    > If you're looking for a 100% ironclad guarantee, then you won't
    > find it. The fact that the State Department does not go after
    > naturalized citizens who make use of their original citizenships is
    > strictly policy, not law. The policy has been in effect since 1990.
    > The best thing that you might be able to do would be to search
    > for some overturned cases where the State Department did
    > attempt to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens who made
    > use of their original citizenships. That, it appears, is what led to the
    > current policy of non-enforcement to begin with. The State
    > Department's rulings were being overturned. That would provide
    > some precedence and would provide you with a close to 98%
    > guarantee, especially since the longer the policy has been in
    > effect, the more people they would have to notify. (The appeals
    > would clog the courts and they would all refer to the previously
    > overturned cases, so the original cases that were appealed
    > would have to be reversed, first.)
    > In reality, the renunciatory statement is a remnant from an era
    > where the world was different (for good and for bad). Given the
    > fact that the prohibitions on natural born US citizens (and on
    > naturalized citizens who acquire another citizenship after
    > acquiring US citizenship) and the fact that the renunciatory
    > statement has shown to be unenforceable, what really should
    > happen is that it be eliminated all together. But, given the US'
    > current politcal landscape and the global situation, that's
    > unlikely. Even though they can't/don't/won't enforce it, it's too
    > symbolic and removing it would cause a large public outcry,
    > especially from the people who don't understand the reasons
    > behind not enforcing it.
    > Good luck in whatever you do.
    > Stephen Gallagher

Stephen,

Thanks a lot for your extensive input. I appreciate it a lot and it
certainly did help me a lot understanding the issue much better.

Thanks,
Rob

Mike

"Boiler" <member22431@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:34$265341$1805694$...
    > > > Thanks a lot for all your responses. It's a quite important subject
    > > > to me as
    > > > there are some important reasons for me to become US citizen (most
    > > > notabely
    > > > that I can vote but also additional protection). On the other hand I
    > > > am
    > > > somewhat worried about taking this step because 1. I do not want to
    > > > give up
    > > > my current citizenship and 2. I don't want to take the risk that I
    > > > might get
    > > > deported because I did not even attempt to revoke my previous
    > > > citizenship.
    > > > From what you write it seems unlikely that the later would happen
    > > > unless I
    > > > get into some serious trouble. I guess in that case a judge could
    > > > argue that
    > > > I never had the attention to revoke my citizenship so I very clearly
    > > > acted
    > > > against my oath. It could be argued that the US does not enforce
    > > > revoking a
    > > > previous citizenship because this is not possible for some
    > > > countries. But
    > > > for countries where it is possible the naturalized person was
    > > > required to
    > > > revoke the citizenship. Obviously I do belong in the later category
    > > > which
    > > > does worry me. If I could find some ruling that would verify that
    > > > this is
    > > > not a problem I would feel much better.
    > >
    > > If you're looking for a 100% ironclad guarantee, then you won't
    > > find it. The fact that the State Department does not go after
    > > naturalized citizens who make use of their original citizenships is
    > > strictly policy, not law. The policy has been in effect since 1990.
    > >
    > > The best thing that you might be able to do would be to search
    > > for some overturned cases where the State Department did
    > > attempt to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens who made
    > > use of their original citizenships. That, it appears, is what led to
    > > the
    > > current policy of non-enforcement to begin with. The State
    > > Department's rulings were being overturned. That would provide
    > > some precedence and would provide you with a close to 98%
    > > guarantee, especially since the longer the policy has been in
    > > effect, the more people they would have to notify. (The appeals
    > > would clog the courts and they would all refer to the previously
    > > overturned cases, so the original cases that were appealed
    > > would have to be reversed, first.)
    > >
    > > In reality, the renunciatory statement is a remnant from an era
    > > where the world was different (for good and for bad). Given the
    > > fact that the prohibitions on natural born US citizens (and on
    > > naturalized citizens who acquire another citizenship after
    > > acquiring US citizenship) and the fact that the renunciatory
    > > statement has shown to be unenforceable, what really should
    > > happen is that it be eliminated all together. But, given the US'
    > > current politcal landscape and the global situation, that's
    > > unlikely. Even though they can't/don't/won't enforce it, it's too
    > > symbolic and removing it would cause a large public outcry,
    > > especially from the people who don't understand the reasons
    > > behind not enforcing it.
    > >
    > > Good luck in whatever you do.
    > >
    > > Stephen Gallagher
    > Very succinctly put.
    > There are very few guarantees in Life, Death and Taxes are the only two
    > I would rely upon.
    > There are distinct advantages in acquiring citizenship, only you can can
    > decide whether these outway the negatives. I personally would not even
    > factor in this one, but each must make their own call.

Boiler,

Thanks a lot for staying with me on this and answering all my posts. It
surely did help me a lot. I certainly have quite a bit a different and more
important clearer view about becoming a US citizen now.

Regards,
Rob

Mike

"CPW" <member24794@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:34$265341$1805955$...
    > > Very succinctly put.
    > >
    > > There are very few guarantees in Life, Death and Taxes are the only
    > > two I would rely upon.
    > >
    > > There are distinct advantages in acquiring citizenship, only you can
    > > can decide whether these outway the negatives. I personally would not
    > > even factor in this one, but each must make their own call.
    > An interesting view of the history of the USA's attitudes to dual
    > nationality can be found at
    > http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002...all/martin.htm - a
    > report of the lecture made by the recently appointed Warner-Booker
    > Distinguished Professor of International Law in Virginia, no less. (I
    > have no idea at all whether this is a prestigious academic post, but the
    > title of the chair sounds jolly impressive!)

CPW,

This is an interesting article. Thanks for answering my posts.

Regards,
Rob

Mike

All,

Thanks a lot for all your inputs. You're a great bunch. Very helpful and
kind in answering all my questions and concerns.

Thanks,
Rob

"mike" <> wrote in message
news:56Wjd.9157$...
    > Hello All,
    > I currently have a green card but I am considering becoming a US citizen
so
    > that I can vote. I do not want to give up my current citizenship, though.
I
    > know Switzerland, of which I am a citizen of, does allow dual citizenship.
I
    > always thought that I would have to give up my current citizenship when
    > becoming a US citizen because the oath during naturalization does say so
    > (only if my country would not allow revoking my citizenship I could
legally
    > be dual citizen). Now from the following two sources I have heard that I
can
    > keep my Swiss citizenship:
    > 1) A Swiss citizen living in the US told me that there is a special
    > agreement between Switzerland and the US that allows to have dual
    > citizenship through naturalization.
    > 2) I called National Customer Service Center and the person I talked to
said
    > it's absolutely not true that there is a requirement that I would have to
    > give up my current citizenship.
    > Now, regarding 1) I have not found anything about such a bilateral
agreement
    > and regarding 2) I don't trust the service center due to past experiences.
    > So does anybody have some more information about this? Do lots of people
    > become US citizen through naturalization and then not give up their old
    > citizenship? I know the US does not actively persue these people anymore
    > that did not give up their old citizenship but that does not mean I might
    > get into troubles with this in the future. So your help and insight is
    > greatly appreciated.
    > Regards,
    > Rob

Jimmy

"mike" <> wrote in message news:<pYykd.23422$>...
    > "CPW" <member24794@british_expats.com> wrote in message
    > news:34$265341$1805955$...
    > >
    > > > Very succinctly put.
    > > >
    > > > There are very few guarantees in Life, Death and Taxes are the only
    > > > two I would rely upon.
    > > >
    > > > There are distinct advantages in acquiring citizenship, only you can
    > > > can decide whether these outway the negatives. I personally would not
    > > > even factor in this one, but each must make their own call.
    > >
    > > An interesting view of the history of the USA's attitudes to dual
    > > nationality can be found at
    > > http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002...all/martin.htm - a
    > > report of the lecture made by the recently appointed Warner-Booker
    > > Distinguished Professor of International Law in Virginia, no less. (I
    > > have no idea at all whether this is a prestigious academic post, but the
    > > title of the chair sounds jolly impressive!)
    >
    > CPW,
    >
    > This is an interesting article. Thanks for answering my posts.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Rob

In the article I think Martin brings an important point to the subject
of dual citizenship with his comment, "Most dual nationals were
regarded as 'crass opportunists,' dodging the obligations of
citizenship by living elsewhere, but then asserting the nationality of
the distant state when it momentarily suited their private interests."
Unfortunately, there will always be people who try to work the system
for personal benefit.
Thanks for the article link and interesting discussion.

Cpw

    > "mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:<pYykd.23422$>...
    > > "CPW" <member24794@british_expats.com> wrote in message
    > > news:34$265341$1805955$...
    > > >
    > > > > Very succinctly put.
    > > > >
    > > > > There are very few guarantees in Life, Death and Taxes are the
    > > > > only
    > > > > two I would rely upon.
    > > > >
    > > > > There are distinct advantages in acquiring citizenship, only you
    > > > > can
    > > > > can decide whether these outway the negatives. I personally
    > > > > would not
    > > > > even factor in this one, but each must make their own call.
    > > >
    > > > An interesting view of the history of the USA's attitudes to dual
    > > > nationality can be found at
    > > > http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002...fall/martin.h-
    > > > tm - a
    > > > report of the lecture made by the recently appointed Warner-Booker
    > > > Distinguished Professor of International Law in Virginia, no less.
    > > > (I
    > > > have no idea at all whether this is a prestigious academic post,
    > > > but the
    > > > title of the chair sounds jolly impressive!)
    > >
    > > CPW,
    > >
    > > This is an interesting article. Thanks for answering my posts.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > Rob
    > In the article I think Martin brings an important point to the subject
    > of dual citizenship with his comment, "Most dual nationals were
    > regarded as 'crass opportunists,' dodging the obligations of
    > citizenship by living elsewhere, but then asserting the nationality of
    > the distant state when it momentarily suited their private interests."
    > Unfortunately, there will always be people who try to work the system
    > for personal benefit.
    > Thanks for the article link and interesting discussion.

There are still people who think that (and of course there are some
people who are opportunistic). However, I tend towards the opposite view
- in =most= circumstances, I think a person who is a good citizen of one
country is also likely to be a good citizen of another country.
(Leopards don't change their spots and all that sort of thing.)

Rich Wales

"JAJ" wrote:

> Which is why the US never instituted such a requirement
> (to formally renounce the 'other' citizenship) - to do
> so would effectively make the granting of US citizenship
> contingent on another country's laws and that rightly
> has never been an acceptable idea in the US.

Another issue involved here is that, at one time, it was fairly
common for countries =not= to allow renunciation of citizenship
(the so-called "perpetual allegiance" doctrine). The US took
the position that anyone who became a US citizen had a natural
right to give up their old citizenship. Adding a requirement
for a new US citizen to take any additional steps to get rid
of his/her old citizenship, above and beyond the renunciatory
statement in the US naturalization oath, would have contradicted
this stance.

Rich Wales http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.