Dual citizenship

[Gob]

As someone with two passports, Aussie and Brit, I found this interesting.

Between 1995 and 2010, the number of people in the Netherlands with dual citizenship nearly tripled.

That isn’t surprising, considering that globalization has made countries all over the world more receptive to the idea of people having more than one nationality.

What is surprising is that the Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world now trying to scale this back, having introduced a law last year that makes it harder for both immigrants to the Netherlands and emigrants from the Netherlands to hold onto their first nationality, as the far-right Freedom Party sees dual citizenship as a threat to national loyalty and as an impediment to assimilation in the Netherlands.

“More than half of the states in the world -- countries of immigration as well as emigration -- now tolerate some form or element of dual citizenship,” reported a study by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank based in the US. As the Economist pointed out, countries like Haiti and Tanzania are among the latest to work toward legalizing dual nationality. And even Denmark, which has long been one of the most difficult places to get dual citizenship – typically only granting it to refugees, those who were born with dual nationality, or those who were not able to renounce their first citizenship – is considering moving toward greater acceptance of the trend.

In the past, governments believed that the desire to belong to more than one nation was an expression of disloyalty. More recently, lingering concerns have been over whether immigrants can fully assimilate if they cling to their original nationality. But census data seems to discredit this theory. For example, in the US (which began passing laws tolerating dual citizenship in the 1950s), the numbers show that Latin American immigrants who become dual citizens have greater employment gains and lower welfare use than those who become US citizens but let go of their first citizenship, indicating economic assimilation. In addition, these immigrants give birth to fewer children than their counterparts, possibly indicating cultural assimilation.

Moreover, some governments have found ways to directly benefit from dual citizenship. Italy used dual nationality as a way to fight its declining population in the 1990s. The current law grants birthright citizenship to anyone with a parent, a grandfather or a great grandfather who held Italian citizenship. Two Caribbean nations, Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis, have “economic citizenship programs” which allow people to buy citizenship without any residency requirements. While those are the only countries in the world selling citizenship directly, in the Dominican Republic, foreigners who invest in real estate or local businesses can obtain citizenship after a minimum residency of just six months (as opposed to the standard two years that other people would have to wait).

For individuals considering taking a second citizenship, the advantages include expanded job opportunities, unrestricted residency, the ability to own property in two countries, access to social programs in two countries and the increased travel options that come with having two passports. Dual citizens may have double the responsibilities though too. Some dual citizens may have to pay taxes and/or register for military service in their new countries -- for instance, South Korea allows dual citizenship until the age of 21 and requires men over the age of 18 to complete military service. In addition, immigrants who gain local citizenship may be subject to laws that would not apply to them as tourists. Citizenship regulations vary quite a bit from country to country, so prospective dual citizens should review their countries’ laws before making a final decision on the matter.

[The Hen]

I am able to validly hold three passports. Aus, UK and NZ.

I might own one of each one day (but only if we are going to NZ regularly).

[dgs49]

QUESTION: If you permanently and legally emigrate to a country, what do you OWE that country?

(Aside from paying taxes and obeying the laws)

Do you have an obligation to assimilate? Learn the language? Respect the prevailing culture and customs?

Is it OK to live in an enclave of same-nationality immigrants, continuing to speak your native language, and making no attempt to assimilate other than as is absolutely necessary?

(NOTE: My in-laws came from Calabria to America and settled, en masse, in a neighborhood in Pittsburgh where they formed a virtual closed society. They didn't even speak to other Italian immigrants in the same neighborhood, who were from a different part of Italy. Now, more than sixty years later, none of them is truly fluent in English, none has ever voted, gone to a ballgame, or interacted with any Americans other than was absolutely necessary to survive. Although most of them are dead now, this has always bothered me. Ironically, under the prevailing immigration laws at the time, since a few patriarchs were naturalized before this generation came over, all had "natural born" citizenship for the asking, and didn't have to go through normal naturalization processes).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Although most of them are dead now, this has always bothered me.

That kind of bothers me about relatives as well.

Meade

[Sean]

QUESTION: If you permanently and legally emigrate to a country, what do you OWE that country?

(Aside from paying taxes and obeying the laws)

Do you have an obligation to assimilate? Learn the language? Respect the prevailing culture and customs?

Damn straight you do! It's called courtesy. Actually assimilation is not necessary IMO but the other two should be conditions of residence.

Is it OK to live in an enclave of same-nationality immigrants, continuing to speak your native language, and making no attempt to assimilate other than as is absolutely necessary?

I would say that it is fine to speak your own language at home as long as you can also speak the language of the country you live in and do not expect the natives to make allowances for your lack of fluency (after a reasonable time allowed for learning the language obviously). I also believe that your children's first language should be that of the country they live in.

[Andrew D]

I find this interesting:

... the Netherlands ... introduced a law last year that makes it harder for both immigrants to the Netherlands and emigrants from the Netherlands to hold onto their first nationality ....

Under US law, dual citizenship of people whose first citizenship is non-US and dual citizenship of people whose first citizenship is US are treated quite differently. Obtaining US citizenship automatically, in the eyes of the US, annihilates any other citizenship. But obtaining non-US citizenship, if one is already a US citizen, does not annihilate US citizenship.

Any non-US citizen who obtains US citizenship must, in the course of so doing, "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which [he or she has] heretofore been a subject or citizen ...." (When my mother, a native of Germany, obtained her US citizenship, she observed to me that it was the first time in her life that she had ever "abjured" anything.)

That means, as far as the US is concerned, the newly minted US citizen is no longer a citizen (or subject) of wherever he or she came from. (That does not mean that the other country must see it that way; the other country is free to recognize that person's continuing citizenship of that other country regardless of the US's opinion.)

But once US citizenship is obtained (by naturalization or by birth (and citizenship by birth can be by virtue of the Constitution or by virtue of statute)), it cannot be taken away. It can only be renounced, explicitly or implicitly, by the person who holds that citizenship.

The US State Department habitually warns people that they can lose their citizenship by doing certain things -- notably joining the military of another nation -- but the Supreme Court, which has the final word in such matters, has espoused the view which I have just described. For example, no matter what the State Department says, it is possible for a US citizen to join the military of another nation without losing her or his US citizenship.

And that is what I find interesting: The government of the Netherlands has made it harder for emigrants from the Netherlands to retain their Netherlands citizenship.

If I were a citizen of the Netherlands, my attitude would be "Fuck you. Who the hell are you to tell me that I am no longer a citizen? You work for me, fuckhead; not the other way around. If you don't like that relationship, then quit. But you sure as hell cannot fire your boss. Suck on that."

[Lord Jim]

But once US citizenship is obtained (by naturalization or by birth (and citizenship by birth can be by virtue of the Constitution or by virtue of statute)), it cannot be taken away.

Weren't there some early Mafia figures who were naturalized American citizens, (having been born in Sicily) who were stripped of their citizenship? I seem to recall this having happened to Lucky Luciano, for one.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Under US law, dual citizenship of people whose first citizenship is non-US and dual citizenship of people whose first citizenship is US are treated quite differently. Obtaining US citizenship automatically, in the eyes of the US, annihilates any other citizenship.

Andrew, that's not what the US State Dept says. I have a vested interest as holder of both U.S. (naturalized) and UK (born) citizenship and passports:

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.... A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship ... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause ... dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country ... Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.

Edited to add link: http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_ ... _1753.html

As to stripping of citizenship, it is easier for a naturalized citizen to lose that status - witness John Demjanjuk and numerous other Nazis and Mafioso. One of the reasons for those stupid questions ("Have you ever been convicted of a crime? Have you ever advocated the overthrow of the US gov't?) is that people lie on their applications - which gives the US gov't the grounds to strip citizenship and deport people who are not US born. Works for temporary permits too of course.

Natural born US citizens can be stripped of the rights of a citizen for treason. But if they happened to be in the USA a the time they surely cannot be 'deported' since they never were 'ported' in the first place - no country could be forced to take them

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

I was born in the USA, got my birth certificate and even got a passport. Guess I am a citizen of the USA. (and I do vote although no one ever checks my papers)

[Andrew D]

Yes, a naturalized US citizen "may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth." Because that person's citizenship of the country of birth is up to that country, not up to the US. But whatever the country of that person's birth may say about the matter, the US will treat a naturalized US citizen as a US citizen, not as a foreign national.

A naturalized US citizen can "lose" her or his US citizenship if that person is shown to have lied in the course of purporting to become a US citizen. But the underlying theory is not that that person "loses" her or his US citizenship (which is why I put "lose" in quotation marks); the underlying theory is that that person, by virtue of having lied in the course of purporting to become a US citizen, was never actually a US citizen at all. (That explains the post-1967 Nazi cases: The Nazis lied in their applications for citizenship, so they were never US citizens at all.)

A US citizen, natural-born or naturalized, can give up her or his US citizenship by explicitly or implicitly renouncing it. And only by explicitly or implicity renouncing it.

The seminal case on the matter is Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) 387 U.S. 253. The plaintiff had been born in Poland, became a naturalized US citizen, went to Israel, and voted in an Israeli Knesset election. The State Department claimed that Afroyim had lost his citizenship, because a federal statute provided that a citizen loses his citizenship by voting in a political election in a foreign state.

In Afroyim, the Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in Perez v. Brownell (1958) 356 U.S. 44. (That explains the pre-1967 mafiosi cases: They were decided when Perez was the law. Under Afroyim, those cases could not be upheld.)

The Supreme Court in Afroyim concisely stated the issue:

The fundamental issue before this Court here, as it was in Perez, is whether Congress can consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up.

(387 U.S. at 256.)

At the end of a chain of legal reasoning which one can read here, the Supreme Court concluded:

Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world—as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

(387 U.S. at 267-268.)

In connection with what is happening in the Netherlands, one sentence in the Afroyim opinion well bears repeating:

The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.

[Andrew D]

Natural born US citizens can be stripped of the rights of a citizen for treason.

No, they cannot. They can be deprived of various civil rights, just as can anyone who is convicted of murder, rape, arson, etc., depending on the law of the jurisdiction in which he or she is convicted.

But no US citizen can be "stripped" of the rights of a citizen. Every US citizen has, as the Supreme Court put it, "a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he [or she] voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."

(See above.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

There's a huge whistling gap between my post and your first reply.

Obtaining US citizenship automatically, in the eyes of the US, annihilates any other citizenship.

I quoted the State Department (US of A) saying that the above is not true. (The word "lose" is theirs; I used the words "stripped of"). I guess they would know.

Causes of Citizenship Loss
U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
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;
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;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of ... nship.html

The key words are "with the intention of". It is argued that the act of committing treason, acts of war against the USA, and some other categories are constructive evidence of that intention. The State Dept website previously cited has much discussion of this.

You cannot categorically say "no US citizen can be "stripped" of the rights of a citizen" when they manifestly can.

Besides I spoke of the "rights" of citizenship being stripped (voting, paying taxes, getting election pamphlets etc) and pointed out that the person cannot be "deportred". They remain stateside.
Meade

[Gob]

A second passport is dead handy for getting in the shortest queue at the airport.

[Lord Jim]

And also a good way to land on the "no fly" list....

[Andrew D]

The key words are "with the intention" ....

Exactly. A person who engages in one or more of the listed acts (or in one or more of various other acts not on the list) may thereby impliedly (or, in rare cases, explicitly) renounce her or his U.S. citizenship.

But a person who engages in such conduct without "the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship" does not renounce her or his US citizenship.

That is exactly what Afroyim is about. The Supreme Court flatly held that even if Congress says that a person will "lose" her or his citizenship by doing a certain thing, that person actually will not "lose" her or his citizenship by doing that thing if that person did not intend to relinquish her or his U.S. citizenship.

Petitioner, born in Poland in 1893, immigrated to this country in 1912 and became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950, and in 1951 he voluntarily voted in an election for the Israeli Knesset, the legislative body of Israel. In 1960, when he applied for renewal of his United States passport, the Department of State refused to grant it on the sole ground that he had lost his American citizenship by virtue of § 401 (e) of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provides that a United States citizen shall "lose" his citizenship if he votes "in a political election in a foreign state."

(387 U.S. at 254 (footnote omitted).)

Thus, according to Congress, Afroyim had lost his citizenship. But the Supreme Court emphatically held that Congress does not have the power to strip a U.S. citizen of her or his citizenship.

The fundamental issue before this Court here, as it was in Perez, is whether Congress can consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up.

(387 U.S. at 256.)

The Supreme Court held that the answer to that question is "NO":

To uphold Congress' power to take away a man's citizenship because he voted in a foreign election in violation of § 401 (e) would be equivalent to holding that Congress has the power to "abridge," "affect," "restrict the effect of," and "take . . . away" citizenship. Because the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from doing any of these things ... the Government is without power to rob a citizen of his citizenship under § 401 (e).

(387 U.S. at 267 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).)

You cannot lose your U.S. citizenship unless you renounce it either explicitly or -- as by doing a certain act "with the intention to relinquish" your U.S. citizenship -- impliedly.

[Andrew D]

I quoted the State Department (US of A) .... I guess they would know.

Well, guess again.

In Afroyim, the State Department refused to renew a U.S. citizen's passport on the ground that according to a federal statute, his U.S. citizenship had been terminated. But the Supreme court held that Congress did not have the power to terminate his citizenship as provided in that statute.

The State Department said one thing. The Supreme Court said the opposite.

Guess who won.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And the relevance is.... what? "refusal to renew a passport under a statute" may have been an invalid action.

I'm sure that a smart mind (not me you see) can find all sorts of government actions that have been disallowed by courts on the grounds that the statue applied as justification was incorrect.

Meade

[rubato]

The child of US citizens is automatically a US citizen no matter where they are born (like McCain).

So how does it work for dual citizenship? Is the child automatically both? Or all four if each parent has dual citizenship in entirely different countries?

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

You could be right on the first part rubato but my experience was just a little (very little) different when my son (American mum, English dad) was born in England.

The way it worked, he was not "automatically" a U.S. citizen although he was automatically a British one. He was "automatically" qualified to choose for himself US or English citizenship. We had to register his birth at the AmEmb, who told me the above, on Grosvenor Sq so that he could later make that decision. And he chose the USA since we moved there when he was less than 1 year old.

As to your second, I don't know. But I would think that each individual country would have its own standard of how citizenship could be claimed. A child could, I suppose claim to be a citizen of X if his grandparents and one parent are citizens of X. In the case of Britain, at one time even a parent of that citizenship was not necessary - grandies were sufficient. (I know one SA person who has three passports - SA, UK and Holland - hmmm there's that Holland thing again....)

Meade

[The Hen]

I can gain an NZ passport because my Dad was born there, a UK one because I was born there, and an Aus one because technically I am regarded as a "child born to an Australian citizen overseas".