Stephen Gallagher

    > > The first case above is actually about a person who was allowed to
    > > keep his security clearance. Only the second case deals with the
    > > denial of a security clearance being renewed.
    >
    > You are correct. Because the first individual had never used an
    > Italian passport after becoming a U.S. citizen, and because he agreed
    > to renounce his Italian citizenship, he was allowed to keep his
    > security clearance.

He said that he was willing to renounce his Italian citizenship.
It does not say that he actually did renounce it.

    > Still, it is clear from both decisions that the
    > U.S. Defense Department regards dual citizenship to be incompatible
    > with holding a security clearance.

They won't refuse to clear a person solely on the issue of
being a dual citizen and if the person, in their eyes,
clearly shows a preference for the United States. It basically
comes down to that if a person is dual citizen through
no action that he took (he has the other citizenship through
the automatic operation of the other country's laws, and if
he doesn't make use of that other citizenship) then he'll probably
qualify.

Stephen Gallagher

Axqi Rqvst

[email protected] (David Tew) wrote in message news:...


    > http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doh...-01490.h1.html
    > http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doh...0-0127.h1.html

It took some googling, but the above URLs only work without the "www"

Note that the State Dept and the CIA aren't so difficult about dual
nationalty; and indeed the former ban on assignment to country of
former nationality or nationality of spouse seems to have gone by the
boards.

FWIW, which is probably nothing, neither the US nor Canada will
accredit a foreign diplomat who is also a national of the host
country; but lots of foreign diplomats seem to have American or
Canadian spouses, and while their immunity is forfeit (for most but
not all purposes, and who cares when the car is registered to the
diplomat, who also has a tax exemption card) any children born in the
US will have US nationality. (It happens I know of a UK diplomat who
had to renounce his US nationality to take up his post of military
attaché; the UK is far less tolerant of dual nationality among its
policy staff, diplomats and military officers than the US is. Even so,
it can't do much or anything about UK-Irish nationals (see the Belfast
Agreement) and anyway most countries (not the US) allow easy
restoration of renounced nationality.

Just some musings on point, more or less.

Jaj

Australia doesn't allow restoration of renounced nationality easily,
unless:
a. Aus citizenship was renounced in order to retain another
nationality; and
b. the applicant is under 25.

The only other route back into Australia (other than applying to
migrate from scratch) for someone in this position would be to apply
for a resident return visa, but if the applicant had left Australia
some time ago this would likely be refused.

Australia does make a distinction between those who lost citizenship
automatically under the pre 2002 law - where it is usually possible to
resume citizenship - and those who formally renounced Australian
citizenship, where it is not.

If a dual UK/US citizen renounced British citizenship to obtain a US
security clearance, then the only way to get back British citizenship
would be to rely on the discretionary resumption provision (where
refusal is possible), rather than the entitlement to resume British
citizenship.

Former Irish citizens born in Ireland or Northern Ireland can resume
Irish citizenship under the new section 6(5) of the Irish Nationality
and Citizenship Act 1956 that came into force on 30 November 2002.
Other former Irish citizens are limited to applying for naturalisation
on a discretionary basis, which could easily be refused.

I'm not aware of any specific provision for former New Zealand
citizens to re-acquire their citizenship other than by migrating back
to NZ from scratch.

No-one should assume, when renouncing citizenship (especially to hold
down a particular job in another country), that re-acquiring their
citizenship later on will be an easy process. Especially if their
activities overseas do not meet with the approval of their home
country government, both current or future.

Jeremy

    >On 24 Apr 2003 13:29:59 -0700, [email protected] (Stephen Gallagher) wrote:
    >> Even so,
    >> it can't do much or anything about UK-Irish nationals (see the Belfast
    >> Agreement) and anyway most countries (not the US) allow easy
    >> restoration of renounced nationality.
    >FYI. Canada does not allow it that easily. They only
    >real concession that they make to restoring renounced
    >nationality is that a former Canadian citizen must
    >reside in Canada as a permanent resident for one year
    >to receive Canadian citizenship. Normally, the requirement
    >is for three years of residence. The hard part is
    >obtaining permanent resident status. There is no concession
    >made in that aspect at all. He has to qualify for that
    >status just like any other non-Canadian who wants to immigrate,
    >and that can be difficult.
    >Stephen Gallagher

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Chris

Sorry my friend, but with this kind of attitude there is no place for you
into the US military. You gotta believe in their ideas, moreover to execute
whatever the orders the Commander-in-Chief might give at any time. If you do
not believe in what US military is doing right now, what a hell are you
making a whole case about your dual citizenship and a job at the Pentagon?
Keep the Canadian citizenship and abandon for good the idea of being
employed in the US military. You cannot work in a company, any company, in
this case is the mighty Pentagon, if you don't get along with the policy in
place at that particular time.
Chris

"Thomas Storm" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > terrorism is going to affect them a lot more after this war.
    > That's because Canada doesn't go around the world pissing people off.
    > > Personally I prefer the maple leaf than the spread eagle.
    > As do I.

Chris

May I ask you please, do you have the guts to go outside White House and say
loudly that you are a Proud Canadian and you have always opposed the
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
At the beginning I thought that you are really in a big dilemma, but in fact
there is no dilemma whatsoever. You might be a US citizen, good for you, but
in reality you don't believe in what White House has been doing in the past
years (or at least couple of months). Why did you have to post your initial
message when in fact you have no real credentials (read: a patriotic US
citizen that fully supports its own troops deployed wherever the President
decides to) to get a job within the Pentagon? Did you think that you can get
a job at the Pentagon without agreeing with what Pentagon is doing these
days? Unless you are a spy, I think you need to take some courses in how to
land a job and keep that job for as long as possible.
What did you say, did they call you "traitor"? I am wondering what's
American in your heart or mind...
Chris

"Thomas Storm" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > And I got the "maple leaf" passport along with a "spread eagle" mind!
    > And I have the "maple leaf" heart, along with a "maple leaf" mind.

Northernligths25

Chris I think you should win the AMerican Idol 2 contest as well as the
Nashville Star contest. You rock. That's a compliment btw. Oh yeah did I
say you should win Star Search as well? 5 Stars for you.

    >Subject: Re: canadian advantage
    >From: "Chris" [email protected]
    >Date: 4/24/03 12:10 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >May I ask you please, do you have the guts to go outside White House and say
    >loudly that you are a Proud Canadian and you have always opposed the
    >Operation Iraqi Freedom?
    >At the beginning I thought that you are really in a big dilemma, but in fact
    >there is no dilemma whatsoever. You might be a US citizen, good for you, but
    >in reality you don't believe in what White House has been doing in the past
    >years (or at least couple of months). Why did you have to post your initial
    >message when in fact you have no real credentials (read: a patriotic US
    >citizen that fully supports its own troops deployed wherever the President
    >decides to) to get a job within the Pentagon? Did you think that you can get
    >a job at the Pentagon without agreeing with what Pentagon is doing these
    >days? Unless you are a spy, I think you need to take some courses in how to
    >land a job and keep that job for as long as possible.
    >What did you say, did they call you "traitor"? I am wondering what's
    >American in your heart or mind...
    >Chris
    >"Thomas Storm" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> > And I got the "maple leaf" passport along with a "spread eagle" mind!
    >> And I have the "maple leaf" heart, along with a "maple leaf" mind.

Roberto

Chris is nobody but Aikido in disguise, also AKA NorthernLights25.

"NorthernLigths25" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
    > Chris I think you should win the AMerican Idol 2 contest as well as the
    > Nashville Star contest. You rock. That's a compliment btw. Oh yeah
    > did I say you should win Star Search as well? 5 Stars for you.
    >> Subject: Re: canadian advantage
    >> From: "Chris" [email protected]
    >> Date: 4/24/03 12:10 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
    >> Message-id:
    >> May I ask you please, do you have the guts to go outside White House and
    >> say loudly that you are a Proud Canadian and you have always opposed the
    >> Operation Iraqi Freedom?
    >> At the beginning I thought that you are really in a big dilemma, but in
    >> fact there is no dilemma whatsoever. You might be a US citizen, good for
    >> you, but in reality you don't believe in what White House has been doing
    >> in the past years (or at least couple of months). Why did you have to
    >> post your initial message when in fact you have no real credentials
    >> (read: a patriotic US citizen that fully supports its own troops
    >> deployed wherever the President decides to) to get a job within the
    >> Pentagon? Did you think that you can get a job at the Pentagon without
    >> agreeing with what Pentagon is doing these days? Unless you are a spy, I
    >> think you need to take some courses in how to land a job and keep that
    >> job for as long as possible.
    >> What did you say, did they call you "traitor"? I am wondering what's
    >> American in your heart or mind...
    >> Chris
    >> "Thomas Storm" wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>>> And I got the "maple leaf" passport along with a "spread eagle" mind!
    >>> And I have the "maple leaf" heart, along with a "maple leaf" mind.

Northernligths25

Who's Aikido?

    >Subject: Re: canadian advantage
    >From: "Roberto" [email protected]
    >Date: 4/24/03 1:14 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >Chris is nobody but Aikido in disguise, also AKA NorthernLights25.
    >"NorthernLigths25" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> Chris I think you should win the AMerican Idol 2 contest as well as the
    >> Nashville Star contest. You rock. That's a compliment btw. Oh yeah
    >> did I say you should win Star Search as well? 5 Stars for you.
    >>> Subject: Re: canadian advantage
    >>> From: "Chris" [email protected]
    >>> Date: 4/24/03 12:10 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
    >>> Message-id:
    >>> May I ask you please, do you have the guts to go outside White House and
    >>> say loudly that you are a Proud Canadian and you have always opposed the
    >>> Operation Iraqi Freedom?
    >>> At the beginning I thought that you are really in a big dilemma, but in
    >>> fact there is no dilemma whatsoever. You might be a US citizen, good for
    >>> you, but in reality you don't believe in what White House has been doing
    >>> in the past years (or at least couple of months). Why did you have to
    >>> post your initial message when in fact you have no real credentials
    >>> (read: a patriotic US citizen that fully supports its own troops
    >>> deployed wherever the President decides to) to get a job within the
    >>> Pentagon? Did you think that you can get a job at the Pentagon without
    >>> agreeing with what Pentagon is doing these days? Unless you are a spy, I
    >>> think you need to take some courses in how to land a job and keep that
    >>> job for as long as possible.
    >>> What did you say, did they call you "traitor"? I am wondering what's
    >>> American in your heart or mind...
    >>> Chris
    >>> "Thomas Storm" wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>> And I got the "maple leaf" passport along with a "spread eagle" mind!
    >>>> And I have the "maple leaf" heart, along with a "maple leaf" mind.

Jaj

And the interesting point here is that even *after* he had formally
renounced his Italian citizenship, the US authorities still wanted to
deny him security clearance.

The poster who started off this thread could, on the same basis,
formally sign away his Canadian citizenship and still find himself
without security clearance. And his Canadian citizenship gone for
good too.

Jeremy

    >On 24 Apr 2003 19:55:59 -0700, [email protected] (David Tew) wrote:
    >[email protected] (Stephen Gallagher) wrote in message news:...
    >>
    >> He said that he was willing to renounce his Italian citizenship.
    >> It does not say that he actually did renounce it.
    >This line:
    >"Upon receiving the SOR, Applicant renounced his Italian citizenship (see ex. A)."
    >seems to be pretty clear about the fact that he actually did renounce it.

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Axqi Rqvst

ELIGIBILITY OF A NONCITIZEN DUAL NATIONAL FOR A PAID
POSITION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

     The Department of Justice must determine the "dominant,
effective" nationality of a noncitizen with dual nationality to
determine that person's eligibility for a paid position in the
Department under section 606 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Act, 1997.

 October 11, 1996

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

     You have sought our views on the question whether, in light of
section 606 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-314,
-354 (1996) ("Section 606"), the Department of Justice may offer a
paid position to a noncitizen who is a national of two foreign
States.1 Section 606 prohibits, with various exceptions, the use of
appropriated funds to employ noncitizens whose post of duty is in the
continental United States; the prohibition is, however, inapplicable
to "nationals of those countries allied with the United States in the
current defense effort." In the case you have described, a noncitizen
law student, who is a dual national of Canada and Bangladesh, is an
applicant for the Department's Summer Law Intern Program. That program
involves employment at the GS-7 level solely within the continental
United States.

     The State Department maintains a list of countries "allied with
the United States in the current defense effort."2 You have advised us
that Canada is included on this list, but that Bangladesh is not.

     Although Congress has repeatedly enacted appropriations laws
that restrict the employment of noncitizens, it has also significantly
modified those restrictions through a series of exceptions. See
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 108-09 (1976). Specifically, in
1943, it created an exception for "‘nationals of those countries
allied with the United States in the prosecution of the war.'" Id. at
109 (quoting Act of June 26, 1943, ch. 146, 57 Stat. 196, 196). That
exception, the substance of which has often been re-enacted, is the
basis of the present section 606. See Peterson Memo at 1.

Analysis

     The plain language of section 606 does not decide the question
presented. It is true that the applicant is a national of an "allied"
country, and so would seem eligible for hire. But it is also true that
the applicant is a national of a nonallied State, and thus would
remain subject to the general ban on noncitizens. Moreover, Congress
has crafted careful, narrowly drawn exceptions in section 606 for the
nationals of particular nonallied countries (e.g., for aliens from
Cuba, provided they are lawfully admitted permanent residents, or for
nationals of the People's Republic of China, if they qualify for
adjustment of status under the Chinese Student Protection Act). It
would seem, therefore, that nationals of other nonallied countries
should remain ineligible, notwithstanding that they may also happen to
have the nationality of an "allied" State. Thus, the language of the
statute does not resolve the issue.

     Similarly, examination of the policies behind section 606 does
not yield a straightforward answer. The general exclusion of
noncitizens from federal employment in the United States seems to be
aimed chiefly at protecting national security by ensuring the loyalty
of federal employees, encouraging noncitizens who seek federal
employment to become naturalized, and shielding United States
nationals from competition in a substantial sector of the labor
market. See Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. at 94, 104 (reviewing
arguments of executive branch). The exception for nationals of
"allied" foreign States, on the other hand, serves distinct, indeed
often contrary, interests: it allows federal employers greater
flexibility in meeting their personnel needs; it expresses this
Nation's solidarity with its allies; and it signifies confidence that
the nationals of such allies are unlikely to betray the trust that the
United States Government has reposed in them. Any simple, "bright
line" rule that treated dual nationals in the applicant's position as
eligible -- or as ineligible -- would promote some of these policies
only at the expense of others.

     We think that the statute is best read, and the policies behind
it most satisfyingly accommodated, by applying the concept of
"effective, dominant nationality." That concept, which derives from
international law,3 has also been invoked by the federal courts to
resolve disputes under domestic law that involve dual nationals. For
example, the court in Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176 (7th Cir. 1980),
made use of the concept in analyzing whether the "alienage
jurisdiction" statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), which vests the
district courts with jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens
of States of the United States and citizens of foreign States, gave
rise to jurisdiction in a case involving a naturalized citizen who was
also an Egyptian national under that country's laws.4 The court
explained the concept as follows:

Under international law, a country is responsible for official conduct
harming aliens, for example, the expropriation of property without
compensation. It is often said, however, that a state is not
responsible for conduct which would otherwise be regarded as wrongful
if the injured person, although a citizen of a foreign state, is also
a national of the state taking the questioned action . . . .

     Despite the general rule of nonresponsibility under
international law for conduct affecting dual nationals, there are
recognized exceptions. One is the concept of effective or dominant
nationality . . . . [T]his exception provides that a country
(respondent state) will be responsible for wrongful conduct against
one of its citizens whose dominant nationality is that of a foreign
state, that is,

(i) his dominant nationality, by reason of residence or other
association subject to his control . . . is that of the other state
and (ii) he . . . has manifested an intention to be a national of the
other state and has taken all reasonably practicable steps to avoid or
terminate his status as a national of the respondent state.
Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States
§ 171(c) (1965).

615 F.2d at 1187 (citation omitted).

     Applying the Restatement's tests, the Sadat court found that the
plaintiff was not a "citizen[] or subject[] of a foreign state" under
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), i.e., that his dominant, effective nationality
was American, not Egyptian. Although the plaintiff had resided in
Egypt rather than in the United States, his actions "manifest[ed] his
continued, voluntary association with the United States and his intent
to remain an American." 615 F.2d at 1188.5 For example, he had
registered with the U.S. Embassy during his sojourns abroad, had cast
an absentee ballot in a Presidential election, and had not sought
employment that might jeopardize his status as a naturalized U.S.
citizen. Id.

     These tests should be used to determine the dominant, effective
nationality of the applicant in question.6 The primary question to be
asked is what nationality is indicated by the applicant's residence or
other voluntary associations. A second question is whether the
applicant has manifested an intention to be a national of one of the
two States, while also seeking to avoid or terminate nationality in
the other. Of these two questions, the former will ordinarily be the
more important. In Sadat itself, it was the plaintiff's voluntary
associations with the United States that led the court to find that
his dominant nationality was American: he had not sought to terminate
or avoid his Egyptian nationality, and had in fact maintained
significant contacts with that country. Consequently, we believe that
a dual national can be found to have a dominant, effective nationality
of one country, even if he or she takes no affirmative steps to
terminate or avoid the nationality of the other -- indeed, even if he
or she makes a conscious decision to retain the latter nationality. 7

     We believe that the procedure we have outlined serves the
various, and sometimes conflicting, goals of section 606. In
particular, it will enable the United States to demonstrate its good
will toward allied States and its confidence in their nationals,
without compromising national security. Moreover, the results of
following the procedure should be both fair to individual applicants
and satisfactory to federal employers. Because "municipal law
determines how citizenship may be acquired," Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S.
325, 329 (1939), 8 an applicant may be deemed a national of a
particular country under its domestic law, even if he or she has no
significant voluntary ties whatever to that country. 9 It would be
unfair to deny the possibility of federal employment to that applicant
merely because of such an incidental, nonvoluntary status, if the
country in question happened to be nonallied. Equally, it would be
unreasonable to treat such an applicant as eligible for federal
employment merely because the country happened to be allied, when the
applicant's actions and choices demonstrated a conscious commitment to
the nationality of another, nonallied State.

 RICHARD L. SHIFFRIN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

1 See Memorandum for Richard L. Shiffrin, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Marc R. Salans, Assistant
Director, Office of Attorney Personnel Management, Re: Eligibility of
Dual Citizen for Paid Position (Oct. 7, 1996).

2 We have reviewed the basis of the State Department's determinations
in Memorandum to Files from Todd D. Peterson, Attorney Advisor, Office
of Legal Counsel, Re: Request for Advice from Administrative Office of
United States Courts Concerning the Interpretation of 31 U.S.C. §
699(b) (Dec. 20, 1982) (the "Peterson Memo").
We note that the Comptroller General's Office has stated that the
decision concerning what countries should be considered "allied" is a
political one, which it will not challenge in an audit. In particular,
it has stated that "a determination that Canada is allied with the
United States in the current defense effort is a political judgment
not subject to the decision of this Office. However, we believe it to
be a commonly accepted fact that Canada is so allied, and we would not
question an affirmative administrative determination to that effect."
Matter of: Clarence D. Swanson, Unpublished Opinion B-188852, 1977 WL
12358 at *3 (C.G.).

3 See Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), 1955 I.C.J. 4, 22 (Apr.
6) ("International arbitrators . . . have given their preference to
the real and effective nationality, that which accorded with the
facts, that based on stronger factual ties between the person
concerned and one of the States whose nationality is involved . . . .
Similarly, the courts of third States, when they have before them an
individual whom two other States hold to be their national, seek to
resolve the conflict by having recourse to international criteria and
their prevailing tendency is to prefer the real and effective
nationality."); see also 8 Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of
International Law 1252-55 (1967) (quoting decision of Italian-United
States Conciliation Commission in Mergé Claim, see United States ex
rel. Mergé v. Italy, 22 I.L.R. 443 (Italian-U.S. Conciliation Comm'n,
1955) discussing international law origins and applications of concept
of effective, dominant nationality).

The doctrine of dominant and effective nationality rests on two
fundamental principles that reflect a contemporary view of the link of
nationality. First, the concept of nationality embodies more than a
tenuous legal bond asserted by municipal law . . . . Second,
nationality is a product of personal choice and action. The conduct of
the individual furnishes the only sound juridical foundation for
recognition of a single nationality.

Note, Claims of Dual Nationals in the Modern Era: The Iran-United
States Claims Tribunal, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 597, 613 (1984) (footnote
omitted).

4 Later decisions have followed Sadat. See, e.g., Soghanalian v.
Soghanalian, 693 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D. Fla. 1988).

5 As the International Court of Justice explained in Nottebohm, "the
habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor
[in determining dominant nationality], but there are other factors
such as the centre of his interests, his family ties, his
participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given
country and inculcated in his children, etc." 1955 I.C.J. at 22.

6 Although making these determinations may entail some administrative
inconvenience, we think that the difficulties should not be
substantial.

7 We note also that it may be a legal impossibility, under applicable
municipal law, for an individual to renounce a particular nationality.
Knowing that the effort to renounce that nationality would be futile,
the individual may make no attempt to do so. In such a case, the
decision not to make such an attempt should obviously not prevent a
court or agency from finding the individual's other nationality to be
dominant.

8 See also Murarka v. Bachrack Bros., Inc., 215 F.2d 547, 553 (2d Cir.
1954) (Harlan, J.) ("It is the undoubted right of each country to
determine who are its nationals, and it seems to be general
international usage that such a determination will usually be accepted
by other nations.").

9 "Municipal laws broadly applying the doctrine of jus sanguinis can .
. . create dual nationality without regard to the individual's
connection to the state. Under this doctrine children are nationals if
their parents are nationals, irrespective of the links (birth or
domicile) between the child and the state." Note, supra note 3, at 607
(footnote omitted).

URL
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/dual.bd.htm

Cases generally cited on the matter of "effective" or "functional"
nationality
(see e.g., Case A18 of Iran-US Claims Tribunal):

For Nottebhom case summary, see:
http://snurl.com/182m

For Mergé case decision, see
http://snurl.com/182n

rewq

Chris,

Could you not stop gargle whatever shit comes out of
US admin's assholes?

Could you not stop arse licking, man.

Get a life, man!

"Chris" wrote in message news:...
    > Sorry my friend, but with this kind of attitude there is no place for you
    > into the US military. You gotta believe in their ideas, moreover to execute
    > whatever the orders the Commander-in-Chief might give at any time. If you do
    > not believe in what US military is doing right now, what a hell are you
    > making a whole case about your dual citizenship and a job at the Pentagon?
    > Keep the Canadian citizenship and abandon for good the idea of being
    > employed in the US military. You cannot work in a company, any company, in
    > this case is the mighty Pentagon, if you don't get along with the policy in
    > place at that particular time.
    > Chris
    >
    > "Thomas Storm" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > > terrorism is going to affect them a lot more after this war.
    > >
    > > That's because Canada doesn't go around the world pissing people off.
    > >
    > > > Personally I prefer the maple leaf than the spread eagle.
    > >
    > > As do I.

Stephen Gallagher

    > Even so,
    > it can't do much or anything about UK-Irish nationals (see the Belfast
    > Agreement) and anyway most countries (not the US) allow easy
    > restoration of renounced nationality.

FYI. Canada does not allow it that easily. They only
real concession that they make to restoring renounced
nationality is that a former Canadian citizen must
reside in Canada as a permanent resident for one year
to receive Canadian citizenship. Normally, the requirement
is for three years of residence. The hard part is
obtaining permanent resident status. There is no concession
made in that aspect at all. He has to qualify for that
status just like any other non-Canadian who wants to immigrate,
and that can be difficult.

Stephen Gallagher

Stephen Gallagher

    > ELIGIBILITY OF A NONCITIZEN DUAL NATIONAL FOR A PAID
    > POSITION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    >
    > Â Â Â Â Â The Department of Justice must determine the "dominant,
    > effective" nationality of a noncitizen with dual nationality to
    > determine that person's eligibility for a paid position in the
    > Department under section 606 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and
    > General Government Appropriations Act, 1997.

Just keep in mind that this is somewhat different from the
topic at hand because it isn't referring to people with
dual US/other citizenship. It refers to a person who is a
citizen of two or more countries, none of which is the
United States (ie. a dual Canadian/Irish citizen), and
more specifically when one of those countries is an allied
with the US and the other is not.

Stephen Gallagher

David Tew

[email protected] (Stephen Gallagher) wrote in message news:...
    > > > The first case above is actually about a person who was allowed to
    > > > keep his security clearance. Only the second case deals with the
    > > > denial of a security clearance being renewed.
    > >
    > > You are correct. Because the first individual had never used an
    > > Italian passport after becoming a U.S. citizen, and because he agreed
    > > to renounce his Italian citizenship, he was allowed to keep his
    > > security clearance.
    >
    > He said that he was willing to renounce his Italian citizenship.
    > It does not say that he actually did renounce it.

This line:
"Upon receiving the SOR, Applicant renounced his Italian citizenship (see ex. A)."
seems to be pretty clear about the fact that he actually did renounce it.

Chris

God Bless America and all its military troops and foreign policy.
Chris

wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Chris,
    > Could you not stop gargle whatever shit comes out of
    > US admin's assholes?
    > Could you not stop arse licking, man.
    > Get a life, man!
    > "Chris" wrote in message
news:...
    > > Sorry my friend, but with this kind of attitude there is no place for
you
    > > into the US military. You gotta believe in their ideas, moreover to
execute
    > > whatever the orders the Commander-in-Chief might give at any time. If
you do
    > > not believe in what US military is doing right now, what a hell are you
    > > making a whole case about your dual citizenship and a job at the
Pentagon?
    > > Keep the Canadian citizenship and abandon for good the idea of being
    > > employed in the US military. You cannot work in a company, any company,
in
    > > this case is the mighty Pentagon, if you don't get along with the policy
in
    > > place at that particular time.
    > > Chris
    > >
    > > "Thomas Storm" wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > terrorism is going to affect them a lot more after this war.
    > > >
    > > > That's because Canada doesn't go around the world pissing people off.
    > > >
    > > > > Personally I prefer the maple leaf than the spread eagle.
    > > >
    > > > As do I.