Peter

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:22:50 -0600,
texan.usenet...@texas.usa.removethisbit...com wrote:


    >>USA cannot unilaterally strip a person of of the citizenship of
    >>another nation. It is the person who has to renounce his or her
    >>original citizenship in exchange for US citizenship. A nation is only
    >>likely to accept a renunciation of citizenship if it does not tolerate
    >>its citizens having dual citizenship. Presumably you renounce your
    >>original citizenship for US citizenship purposes by surrendering your
    >>original passport and declining to acts generally reserved for
    >>citizens such as voting or standing for public office. If you assert
    >>your original citizenship you presumably are deemed to be no longer a
    >>US citizen.
    >????????????????????
    >Where on earth did you come up with the above?

I cannot 'cite' every aspect of this but:
1. AFAIK the USA does does not tolerate its citizens holding
citizenship of other nations (but do not confuse citizenship with
residency).
2. It follows that if a citizen of another nation wishes to take up
citizenship of the USA the citizen would need to renounce the former
citizenship as best as he or she is able.
3. If follows further that if the person takes up foreign citizenship
again then AFAIK that person is deemed to renounce USA citizenship.
Acts such as obtaining a passport from or voting in the elections of
another country are obvious signs of exercising citizenship of another
country (agreed, some countries like NZ allow residents who are not
citizens to vote, but this would not necessarily stop the USA of using
this as citizenship evidence).
4. Also note that some years ago, a NZer by birth sought to renounce
citizenship in protest at Government actions, but was refused on the
grounds that it would render him stateless.
    >>I do not see USA granting citizenship by virtue of serving a long
    >>stretch in one of its jails.
    >No way Jose can it happen.
    >As soon as they due to be released, they will be released into the
    >custody of the BCIS and deported. Both will never be able to
    >enter the US again.
Of course.

    >There are countries where you can loose your aquired citizenship by
    >being absent for a number of years.
Agreed, that is their business. The emphasis here is 'acquired' the
logic being that the person is generally entitled to return to his or
her country of birth or that the person has citizenship in or is
entitled to indefinite residence in. A total citizenship 'lockout' is
possible where citizenship expires, but seems unlikely in practice at
least with respect to countries who respect human rights.

Flange

"dechucka" <> wrote in message
news:FDm2e.42$...
    > "Flange" <> wrote in message
    > news:4249bfc8$0$5190$...
    >> "netvegetable" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and
    >>> put
    >>> their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of
    >>> themselves with the money, both evidently wore their distinctive work
    >>> uniforms to the robbery.
    >> They sound about as intelligent as Joe Fivepack.
    > and alot more intelligent than sleepy Flange


ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Dechucka

"Flange" <> wrote in message
news:424a5791$0$5595$...
    > "dechucka" <> wrote in message
    > news:FDm2e.42$...
    >> "Flange" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4249bfc8$0$5190$...
    >>> "netvegetable" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and
    >>>> put
    >>>> their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of
    >>>> themselves with the money, both evidently wore their distinctive work
    >>>> uniforms to the robbery.
    >>> They sound about as intelligent as Joe Fivepack.
    >> and alot more intelligent than sleepy Flange
    > ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

point proved
    >

sgallagher

    > I cannot 'cite' every aspect of this but:
    > 1. AFAIK the USA does does not tolerate its citizens holding
    > citizenship of other nations

That's a commonly held belief, but it's not true.
It did have some truth at one time. However, Supreme
Court decisions starting in 1967 as well as State Department
policy changes have made dual citizenship (the holding of
more than one citizenship) open to US citizens.

In particular:

A US citizen can be born with both US citizenship
and another citizenship, and the US has no problem
with him keeping both citizenships.

A US citizen can acquire another citizenship
and he will not lose his US citizenship unless
his intention was to give up US citizenship.

The US does have a "renunciatory statement" in its
naturalization oath, but if the person's original country
does not view that statement as having any effect under
its laws, then the person is also a dual citizen.

    > 2. It follows that if a citizen of another nation wishes to take up
    > citizenship of the USA the citizen would need to renounce the former
    > citizenship as best as he or she is able.

The only renunciation required is the renunciatory statement in the
naturalization oath. But, if the person's original country
does not view that statement as having any effect under its laws,
then the person does not have to take any further steps to attempt
to renounce his original citizenship. So, for example, if a
naturalized citizen's country doesn't view the US renunciatory
statement as having any effect under their laws, but they do have
a renunciatory procedure that the person could manually undertake,
the US does NOT require that person do manually perform
any procedure. They only require the renunciatory
statement in the US naturalization process.

When the original country refuses to let go, and many do,
that person can continue to hold his original passport,
and use it abroad. He must deal with the US as a
US citizen, and obey all the laws that apply to any
US citizen.

    > 3. If follows further that if the person takes up foreign
citizenship
    > again then AFAIK that person is deemed to renounce USA citizenship.

No. Not unless his intention was to renounce US citizenship.
If his intention was to keep US citizenship then he keeps it.

    > Acts such as obtaining a passport from or voting in the elections of
    > another country are obvious signs of exercising citizenship of
another
    > country (agreed, some countries like NZ allow residents who are not
    > citizens to vote, but this would not necessarily stop the USA of
using
    > this as citizenship evidence).

None of these will cause loss of US citizenship. Voting in
foreign elections cause loss of citizenship at one time,
but that law was declared unconstitutional in 1967,
and in fact, that case Afroyim v. Rusk, is what lead to the
interpretation of the law so that the prohibitions on
dual citizenship have been eliminated.

The following website describes the US policy on dual
citizenship with references to the various US laws
and cases that led to the current policy.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

Stephen Gallagher

sgallagher

    > Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and
put
    > their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of
    > themselves with the money, both evidently wore their distinctive work
    > uniforms to the robbery.
    > Christened by the Aussie media as "Dumb and Dumber", one was from
    > Australia, and the other New Zealand, so it appears they've managed
to
    > disgrace all of Australasia.
    > If they do end up spending 25 years in a US prison, will they be
    > considered naturalised in the US

No. Physical presence in the US, other than at the moment
of one's birth, will not cause acquisition of US citizenship.

... and hence have to re apply for their
    > Aussie/NZ citizenship?

Even if the US were to grant citizenship to these
criminals (and they won't), the criminals would not have to
reapply for their original citizenships because they
wouldn't lose them to begin with.

Neither Australia nor New Zealand will take away
the citizenship of someone who applies for or who
receives another citizenship. Australia used to
take away citizenship of adults who voluntarily
applied for another citizenship but they don't
do that any longer.

In any case, it's a non-starter. The US wouldn't
grant citizenship based on a lengthly stay in a US
prison.

Stephen Gallagher

Peter

On 30 Mar 2005 11:48:05 -0800, wrote:


    >None of these will cause loss of US citizenship. Voting in
    >foreign elections cause loss of citizenship at one time,
    >but that law was declared unconstitutional in 1967,
    >and in fact, that case Afroyim v. Rusk, is what lead to the
    >interpretation of the law so that the prohibitions on
    >dual citizenship have been eliminated.
    >The following website describes the US policy on dual
    >citizenship with references to the various US laws
    >and cases that led to the current policy.
    >http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
    >Stephen Gallagher
Thanks for the elucidation. I know a NZ'er who has lived in USA for
many years and married to a born USA citizen but who has never taken
up US citizenship probably because of the 'renounce' part of the
declaration. Perhaps the time has come for USA to 'get real' and
remove this from its declaration.

sgallagher

    > >
    > Thanks for the elucidation. I know a NZ'er who has lived in USA for
    > many years and married to a born USA citizen but who has never taken
    > up US citizenship probably because of the 'renounce' part of the
    > declaration. Perhaps the time has come for USA to 'get real' and
    > remove this from its declaration.

Given the fact that one country can't force another country to withdraw
its citizenship from a person, and the fact that US citizens can hold
dual citizenship in other circumstances you're probably correct on the
comment that the US should scrap the renunciatory clause altogether.
But, given the current state of world affairs, and the political makeup
in Washington, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. The statement has
too much symbolism, even if it doesn't actually cause loss of a
person's original citizenship. There are many people in the US who
mistakenly believe that US citizens can't be dual citizens. This is
primarily because the US did have restrictions on dual citizenship at
one time. Most of the restrictions were overturned in court, so the
government has begrudgingly accepted that it exists and they accept
that some US citizens are also citizens of other countries. They don't
encourage it, but they don't discourage it either.

Many US government documents are even written in versions of "legalese"
that will leave the average reader with the impression that dual
citizenship is not allowed:

For example: Inside a US passport it says that a person MAY lose his
US citizenship by performing certain actions, like naturalizing in
another country, etc. The reason it says that a person "may lose" and
not "will lose" is because loss of citizenship when performing one of
these actions requires an intention to give up citizenship. But, they
don't mention the fact that an intention is required, nor do they
mention that the standard presumption is that a person intends to keep
citizenship. So, the average person reading that message will
interprets it as "will lose citizenship". When you combine that with
the fact that the US still has its renuncitory statement for
naturalized citizens, it results in many people still believing that
dual citizenship is not allowed in the US.

Stephen Gallagher