sgallagher

Bank M wrote:
    > Thanks all for the reply. I get the idea that I do not cancel the original
    > citizenship until American citizenship is granted. That makes sense for me
    > anyway.
    > I want American citizenship, period, no dual attached.
    > The problem is that by my giving up the original nationality, I will loose
    > quite a fortune in the hourse under my residency. If I do not cancel it,
    > will this be caught? by whom? In another words, will both countries check on
    > me?

The US will not check to see whether you still retain your original
citizenship or not. Whether your original country will check will
depend on which country that is and what that country's laws says
about their citizens who acquire another nationality.

sgallagher

MH wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]> ,
    > ian-mstm <member2954@british_expats.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Bank M wrote:
    > >> > Hi everyone, is there anyone knows that if a person should should
    > >> > cancel
    > >> > his or her original nationality first; or wait until get American
    > >> > citizenship then cancel the origin?
    > >> >
    > >> > Great thanks for your help!
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> This topic seems to have come up a lot lately.
    > >> It would help everyone if people would say which country or countries
    > >> they are dealing with.
    > >> My wife has dual citizenship and has wondered about triple
    > >> citizenship.
    > >> From what I've seen she can get U.S. citizenship and still keep her
    > >> other two. The U.S. seems to discourage this practice, but a lot of
    > >> other countries seems to accept it.
    > >> From what I've seen so far this isn't a real problem in the U.S., but
    > >> from one of the messages here it is in some countries.
    > >
    > >While dual citizenship is becoming more common for our regular readers,
    > >there are several, like me, who post on here and have triple
    > >citizenship. I am a citizen of the US, the UK, and Canada. I have 3
    > >passports. In each country, I am considered *solely* a citizen of that
    > >country. When travelling, I enter each country with the passport of that
    > >country. So far... it's not been an issue.
    > >
    > >Ian
    > So, what everyone (everyone being me) wants to know is: when travelling to a
    > country NOT part of UK, US and The Great White North, which passport do you
    > use?

Since I'm also a US, UK, and Canadian citizen I'd have to add that the
passport I've used depends on which country I'm entering/exiting. When
going into the US, Britain, or Canada I would always use that country's
passport. When entering a country other than those three, I would
probably use the passport of the country I just left. For instance, I
flew to Mexico from the US and used my US passport. If travelling to
Europe I would probably use by British passport.

Rich Wales

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> The US will not check to see whether you still retain
> your original citizenship or not. Whether your original
> country will check will depend on which country that is
> and what that country's laws says about their citizens
> who acquire another nationality.

FWIW, it appears that both immigration proposals recently passed
by the House (H.R. 4437) and the Senate (S. 2611) contain a
provision (same wording in both bills) that would require the
State Dept. to inform embassies of foreign countries when their
citizens become naturalized US citizens. The notification would
say that the person in question had renounced his/her allegiance
to the other country.

It would, obviously, still be up to other countries to decide
(based on their own laws) whether or not to interpret the
renunciatory statement in the US naturalization oath as causing
the loss of the person's original citizenship. The provision in
the current bills would simply make sure that other countries
were made aware when their citizens became US citizens; what
(if anything) the other countries might choose to do with this
information would still be up to them, not the US.

Keep in mind, of course, that H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 have =not=
yet been enacted into law -- and, depending on how willing (or
unwilling) the people in Congress are to compromise on illegal
immigration (the main subject of both bills), it's anyone's guess
right now as to whether =any= bill on immigration or citizenship
will be enacted this year. But since this particular provision
is contained in both the House and Senate bills, I would assume
that if a compromise bill does take shape, it will probably
include this provision.

Rich Wales [email protected] 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.

Just Jenney

Here's the text from the House bill (H.R.4437) on this matter:

SEC. 1201. OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE.

(a) In General- Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448(a)) is amended by inserting after the fourth sentence the following: `The oath referred to in this section shall be the oath provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 337.1 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on April 1, 2005.'.

(b) Notice to Foreign Embassies- Upon the naturalization of a new citizen, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall notify the embassy of the country of which the new citizen was a citizen or subject that such citizen has--
(1) renounced allegiance to that foreign country; and
(2) sworn allegiance to the United States.

(c) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.


(I could not find where the Senate bill addressed the renunciation issue.)

Personally I find this a bit disturbing and annoying. Firstly, I don't understand what purpose this serves. Why add to the already maxed-out workload of the US State Dept and DHS with something that ultimately makes no difference to the US government or society? If anything this seems like it would add to the existing backlog.

Secondly, does this only apply to people who naturalize after the law goes into effect or is it retroactive to apply to ALL naturalized US citizens? I would think, to be fair, it would apply to all. At the same time, of course, it seems stupid to waste time, money and energy doing so.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what does this mean for naturalized US citizens who want to retain dual citizenship? How does one go about determining whether his/her native country's government is going to revoke citizenship upon reception of this "renunciation" notification from the US government?

I mean, does Mark just call up the British consulate and say, "Hey, I'm looking to become a dual citizen in the next couple of years. However, it looks like by the time I do, you will be sent a notice saying that I've 'renounced' my British citizenship -- only it won't be coming from ME, it will be coming from the US government. So, what happens then? Do I need to worry about being stripped of my British citizenship??"

Is it as simple as that?

~ Jenney

ian-mstm

I'd be interested to know how they would deal with someone who is in the same position I am. I'm a UK citizen by birth, a naturalized Canadian, and a naturalized USC. In all of my dealings with USCIS, I indicated only that I was a Canadian citizen. Of course, I wrote Glasgow, Scotland when I was required to indicate my place of birth. At any rate, I never once claimed to be a UK citizen. On my naturalization certificate, it shows the UK as my "Country of Former Nationality".

So... if this goes into effect, would I effectively lose my UK citizenship or my Canadian citizenship? Enquiring minds want to know.

Yah... I've got to agree with you on this - the whole thing impacts an already overburdened bureaucracy and still has no force of law in the foreign country. What's the point then?

Ian

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Who knows how it would work out in practice. MY concern is that there are certain countries which it might have an adverse effect on relatives remaining in home country if US calls them up and says "by the way..." Canada and the UK are not among them, but there are others I would be concerned about.

And US law on this can be weird. During the "special registration" fiasco to round up potential Islamic Terrorists, many Iranians who had immigrated to Israel and taken up Israeli nationality under the Israeli Law of Return were treated by the US as Iranian even though they had entered on Israeli passports.

sgallagher

(snip)
    > Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what does this mean for
    > naturalized US citizens who want to retain dual citizenship? How does
    > one go about determining whether his/her native country's government is
    > going to revoke citizenship upon reception of this "renunciation"
    > notification from the US government?
    > I mean, does Mark just call up the British consulate and say, "Hey, I'm
    > looking to become a dual citizen in the next couple of years. However,
    > it looks like by the time I do, you will be sent a notice saying that
    > I've 'renounced' my British citizenship -- only it won't be coming from
    > ME, it will be coming from the US government. So, what happens then? Do
    > I need to worry about being stripped of my British citizenship??"
    > Is it as simple as that?

It's simpler, he won't have to do a thing because his renunciation and
the notification of such, has no effect under British law. The fact
that the US government may notify the British consulate that Mark has
"renounced" his original citizenship won't mean anything to Britain
because:

British law has defined procedures for the renunciation of British
citizenship. Making a statement of renunciation in front of US
officials as part of the US naturalization process does not meet the
British requirements. In particular, a British citizen must appear
before British officials (normally at a British consulate) and file the
properly defined forms renouncing citizenship, which must then be sent
to Britain's Home Office for approval. The US naturalization oath's
renunciatory statement simply does not meet the British requirement for
renunciation.

In other words, the US may officially send a note to the British
government saying that he has renounced his British citizenship and
sworn allegiance to the US, but Britain's response will be, "Sorry old
chap, in our eyes he's still British. But, if you wish to view him as
being an American, that's all right with us."

How other countries will react to being told by the US that their
citizen has renounced his original citizenship is impossible to answer
with a blanket statement. But, generally, for the countries that
currently allow dual citizenship it will probably make no difference.
The only people who might be affected by this proposed legislation, if
it were to pass, would be the people from countries that do not
currently allow dual citizenship and who would be wishing to hide the
fact of their US naturalization from that country.

Stephen Gallagher

sgallagher

ian-mstm wrote:
    > > Here's the text from the House bill (H.R.4437) on this matter:
    > >
    > > SEC. 1201. OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
    > > bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109r2ZjaZ:e292932:)
    > >
    > > (a) In General- Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
    > > (8 U.S.C. 1448(a)) is amended by inserting after the fourth sentence
    > > the following: `The oath referred to in this section shall be the oath
    > > provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 337.1 of title 8, Code
    > > of Federal Regulations, as in effect on April 1, 2005.'.
    > >
    > > (b) Notice to Foreign Embassies- Upon the naturalization of a new
    > > citizen, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in cooperation with
    > > the Secretary of State, shall notify the embassy of the country of
    > > which the new citizen was a citizen or subject that such citizen
    > > has--
    > > (1) renounced allegiance to that foreign country; and
    > > (2) sworn allegiance to the United States.
    > >
    > > (c) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take
    > > effect on the date that is 6 months after the date of the
    > > enactment of this Act.
    > >
    > >
    > > (I could not find where the Senate bill addressed the
    > > renunciation issue.)
    > >
    > > Personally I find this a bit disturbing and annoying. Firstly, I don't
    > > understand what purpose this serves. Why add to the already maxed-out
    > > workload of the US State Dept and DHS with something that ultimately
    > > makes no difference to the US government or society? If anything this
    > > seems like it would add to the existing backlog.
    > >
    > > Secondly, does this only apply to people who naturalize after the law
    > > goes into effect or is it retroactive to apply to ALL naturalized US
    > > citizens? I would think, to be fair, it would apply to all. At the
    > > same time, of course, it seems stupid to waste time, money and energy
    > > doing so.
    > >
    > > Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what does this mean for
    > > naturalized US citizens who want to retain dual citizenship? How does
    > > one go about determining whether his/her native country's government
    > > is going to revoke citizenship upon reception of this "renunciation"
    > > notification from the US government?
    > >
    > > I mean, does Mark just call up the British consulate and say, "Hey,
    > > I'm looking to become a dual citizen in the next couple of years.
    > > However, it looks like by the time I do, you will be sent a notice
    > > saying that I've 'renounced' my British citizenship -- only it won't
    > > be coming from ME, it will be coming from the US government. So, what
    > > happens then? Do I need to worry about being stripped of my British
    > > citizenship??"
    > >
    > > Is it as simple as that?
    > >
    > > ~ Jenney
    > I'd be interested to know how they would deal with someone who is in the
    > same position I am. I'm a UK citizen by birth, a naturalized Canadian,
    > and a naturalized USC. In all of my dealings with USCIS, I indicated
    > only that I was a Canadian citizen. Of course, I wrote Glasgow, Scotland
    > when I was required to indicate my place of birth. At any rate, I never
    > once claimed to be a UK citizen. On my naturalization certificate, it
    > shows the UK as my "Country of Former Nationality".

Keep in mind that the word "former" does not necessarily indicate a
state or condition that is no longer in effect. Former can also mean
"occuring earlier in a series". In other words, listing the UK as your
"country of former nationality" only means that you were a British
citizen BEFORE you were a US citizen. It doesn't, necessarily, mean
that you are were a British citizen but that you are no longer a
British citizen (although that may be what some US officials would like
it to mean). Only Britain can decide whether you are a British
citizen, just as only the US decides whether you are a US citizen. If
Britian says you are British, then you are still British in the eyes of
British law.

    > So... if this goes into effect, would I effectively lose my UK
    > citizenship or my Canadian citizenship? Enquiring minds want to know. :)

No, it won't affect either citizenship. Both British and Canadian
citizenship must be renounced by that person appearing at the
respective country's consulate and following that country's defined
procedure for renunciation of citizenship. Renouncing citizenship as
part of the US naturalization process has no effect under Canadian law,
nor under British law.

Britain and Canada would simply ignore any such message sent to them,
because you would have had to appear before them and make a
renunciatory request yourself.

    > Yah... I've got to agree with you on this - the whole thing impacts an
    > already overburdened bureaucracy and still has no force of law in the
    > foreign country. What's the point then?

Symbolism, but you're right, expensive. It may hinder some people who
have been trying to hide their naturalizations from some countries,
especially if those countries don't allow dual citizenship. But, for
the countries the currently allow it, it likely have no effect.

Rich Wales

"Jenney & Mark" wrote:

> (I could not find where the Senate bill addressed the
> renunciation issue.)

See section 644 of S. 2611 ("Strengthening American Citizenship"),
subsection (h).

> Secondly, does this only apply to people who naturalize
> after the law goes into effect or is it retroactive to
> apply to ALL naturalized US citizens?

Since it says that the action in question shall be taken "upon
the naturalization of a new citizen", I would assume it would
most likely apply =only= to people who become naturalized US
citizens =after= the change in the law took effect.

> Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what does this
> mean for naturalized US citizens who want to retain
> dual citizenship?

That would depend entirely upon the laws and policies of one's
country of origin. One would have to contact knowledgeable,
reliable officials of that country -- or, perhaps, a lawyer in
that country with a thorough understanding of its citizenship
laws -- or maybe an American immigration lawyer who specializes
in representing clients from that country (meaning he/she might
possibly have had a reason to become familiar with that other
country's laws on citizenship, and not solely with US law) -- in
order to know whether the US notification would have any effect.

Stated another way, citizenship in any country is solely a matter
of the laws of that country. The US cannot force any other
country either to consider, or to refuse to consider, any given
individual as one of that other country's citizens, any more than
another country can force the US to consider someone to be (or
not to be) a US citizen.

In the case of a citizen of the UK (or Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Israel, and many other countries), the sort of notice
which this proposal would cause to be given by US officials would
have no effect at all, because those countries do not recognize
or accept any sort of statement made to US (or other foreign)
government officials as having any effect whatsoever under their
own citizenship laws. (They may have their own legal procedures
for giving up citizenship, but foreign naturalization -- even if
the foreign ceremony includes some sort of renunciation -- doesn't
count.)

In the case of some other countries (Germany, Singapore, and
India come to my mind, though there are many others), this sort
of notice =would= result in the person in question losing his old
citizenship -- not specifically because the US statement said the
person in question had renounced his old citizenship, but because
those countries do not generally permit their citizens to hold
any other citizenship under any conditions, and as soon as they
find out that someone has acquired US (or any other foreign)
citizenship, they will revoke his/her old citizenship on account
of their blanket prohibition against multiple citizenship. (The
same thing would happen, for example, if a person from such a
country were to become a naturalized citizen of Canada or the UK
-- countries which do not have any sort of renunciatory verbiage
in their naturalization ceremonies.)

The only real effect of the proposed new provision in the two
US bills, AFAIK, is that it would keep people from clandestinely
hanging on to their old citizenship by concealing their US
naturalization from officials of their old country -- in cases
where the old country doesn't permit dual citizenship and will
revoke citizenship upon foreign naturalization.

> I mean, does Mark just call up the British consulate and
> say, "Hey, I'm looking to become a dual citizen in the
> next couple of years. However, it looks like by the
> time I do, you will be sent a notice saying that I've
> 'renounced' my British citizenship -- only it won't be
> coming from ME, it will be coming from the US government."

AFAIK, the renunciatory statement in the US naturalization oath
is legally meaningless under British law. And even if the US
were to provide some sort of official notice to British officials
regarding the US naturalization of a British citizen (or his/her
having made a statement renouncing prior allegiances), that would
still not have any effect on the person's status as a British
citizen (as far as British law was concerned).

I understand that there does happen to exist a procedure in
British law whereby one can have his/her British citizenship
cancelled -- but this requires direct, explicit action by the
person involved, and a statement made in the person's name by
the US (or any other foreign government) is not recognized as
a valid way to invoke this provision in British law.

This still leaves unaddressed, of course, the whole issue of
exactly what the renunciatory statement in the US naturalization
oath means in theory, or in practice, and how (if at all) it is
enforced by anyone. The proposal in H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 does
not say anything at all about this point. Another bill currently
before Congress (H.R. 3938) would, if enacted, put significant
teeth into the renunciatory part of the US oath, but this bill
is currently languishing in a House subcommittee and appears to
have absolutely no prospect of becoming law.

Rich Wales [email protected] 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.

Rich Wales

"Ian" wrote:

> So... if this goes into effect, would I effectively
> lose my UK citizenship or my Canadian citizenship?

No, because neither the UK nor Canada recognizes any renunciatory
statement made to foreign (e.g., US) officials -- or even a report
to their embassy from US or other foreign officials saying that
you had renounced your old allegiance(s) or citizenship(s).

In order to =really= lose your British citizenship (under British
law) -- or your Canadian citizenship (under Canadian law) -- you
would have to contact officials of the UK and/or Canada directly,
by yourself, and go through a specific bureaucratic procedure
defined by British and/or Canadian law.

Part of the reason, BTW, why US law does not require, expect, or
even ask newly naturalized US citizens to go through any sort of
citizenship revocation procedure with their old country/countries
is that modern US citizenship law evolved in the context of an
older state of affairs in which most countries did =not= accept
the idea that a person had any sort of legal right to give up
their native citizenship (search Google for the phrase "perpetual
allegiance" for more on this).

When the US abandoned the doctrine of perpetual allegiance in the
1860's, it took the position that if someone became a US citizen,
their "old country" had no right to insist on hanging on to them
any more. Any acknowledgment of a new US citizen's needing to
go through a foreign renunciation procedure would have been
inconsistent with the view that other countries had a natural
obligation to respect the renunciation in the US naturalization
oath and not impose any additional requirements of their own.

The US State Dept., in its current (1990) set of policies on dual
nationality, acknowledges that US naturalization may not in fact
result in loss of one's prior citizenship(s) -- but Congress has
evidently not been willing to take this same step, so the blanket
renunciatory statement remains in the naturalization oath, despite
its having no real practical effect (other than, perhaps, to
symbolize that the person is an American now and no longer has
any expectation of being able to invoke other citizenship ties
in his/her dealings with the US government or US officials).

Rich Wales [email protected] 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.

Just Jenney

That's the way the UK's renunciation policy is NOW. (I'm referring to the UK because that's where Mark's from.) However, what if that changes once the British consulates are inundated with "renunciation notices" from the US government?

In other words, could this new notification process prompt a change to the current renunciation policies in countries like the UK, Canada, etc., making it more difficult or even impossible for citizens of those countries to be dual citizens?

Although I find this new proposal completely pointless, it's fine with me as long as it doesn't risk Mark's chances of being a US/UK dual citizen.

~ Jenney

sgallagher

    > That's the way the UK's renunciation policy is NOW. (I'm referring to
    > the UK because that's where Mark's from.) However, what if that changes
    > once the British consulates are inundated with "renunciation notices"
    > from the US government?
    > In other words, could this new notification process prompt a change to
    > the current renunciation policies in countries like the UK, Canada,
    > etc., making it more difficult or even impossible for citizens of those
    > countries to be dual citizens?

The only way that Britain could change it's policy would be if
Parliament were to enact a new nationality law. While you can never
say never, it's highly unlikely for several reasons. British
nationality law lost its prohibition against dual nationality in 1949.
Since 1949, the act of taking another citizenship whether it involved a
statement of renunciation or not, has not caused loss of British
nationality. The law has been amended several times since 1949 and
never has the prohibition against dual nationality been put back in, in
fact it's been made easier for the foreign born children of British
citizens to automatically receive British nationality or to acquire it,
all without any requirement of having to give up their original
nationality.

On top of this, people from Britain have settled throughout the world,
with many of them taking citizenship along with way, so the British
government is well aware that hundreds of thousands of their citizens
(I'd say millions) are also citizens of other countries. It's not as
if Brits are clandestinely acquiring these other citizenships.

Additionally, even if Britain's Parliament were to enact new
nationality legislation, it's unlikely that it would apply
retrospectively, because that opens the door for other laws to be
applied retrospectively (something the government may not necessarily
want).

So, in all likelyhood, any official notifications that Britain would
receive from the US saying that one of their citizens has renounced his
British citizenship would most likely go straight into the bin.
Britain has a defined procedure for renouncing citizenship, and making
a statement of renunciation to US officials, no matter how sincere the
person may be, does not meet that procedure.

As stated earlier, the only people that this proposed law would might
affect would be those from countries that have an overall prohibition
on dual nationality. And, even then, it would depend on how rigidly
that country enforces that law. Generally, the countries that wish to
strictly enforce their anti-dual nationality laws will have some
existing procedures in place to verify that their nationals who live
abroad have not acquired a foreign nationality. For example, German
citizens who live in the US must submit a recently notarized copy of
their valid US Green Card, when they apply to renew their German
passports. The fact that they possess their Green Card would be
accepted as proof that they have not acquired US citizenship (since
Green Cards are normally handed back to the US government when
naturalization takes place.)

sgallagher

    > That's the way the UK's renunciation policy is NOW. (I'm referring to
    > the UK because that's where Mark's from.) However, what if that changes
    > once the British consulates are inundated with "renunciation notices"
    > from the US government?
    > In other words, could this new notification process prompt a change to
    > the current renunciation policies in countries like the UK, Canada,
    > etc., making it more difficult or even impossible for citizens of those
    > countries to be dual citizens?

The only way that Britain could change it's policy would be if
Parliament were to enact a new nationality law. While you can never
say never, it's highly unlikely for several reasons. British
nationality law lost its prohibition against dual nationality in 1949.
Since 1949, the act of taking another citizenship whether it involved a
statement of renunciation or not, has not caused loss of British
nationality. The law has been amended several times since 1949 and
never has the prohibition against dual nationality been put back in, in
fact it's been made easier for the foreign born children of British
citizens to automatically receive British nationality or to acquire it,
all without any requirement of having to give up their original
nationality.

On top of this, people from Britain have settled throughout the world,
with many of them taking citizenship along with way, so the British
government is well aware that hundreds of thousands of their citizens
(I'd say millions) are also citizens of other countries. It's not as
if Brits are clandestinely acquiring these other citizenships.

Additionally, even if Britain's Parliament were to enact new
nationality legislation, it's unlikely that it would apply
retrospectively, because that opens the door for other laws to be
applied retrospectively (something the government may not necessarily
want).

So, in all likelyhood, any official notifications that Britain would
receive from the US saying that one of their citizens has renounced his
British citizenship would most likely go straight into the bin.
Britain has a defined procedure for renouncing citizenship, and making
a statement of renunciation to US officials, no matter how sincere the
person may be, does not meet that procedure.

As stated earlier, the only people that this proposed law would might
affect would be those from countries that have an overall prohibition
on dual nationality. And, even then, it would depend on how rigidly
that country enforces that law. Generally, the countries that wish to
strictly enforce their anti-dual nationality laws will have some
existing procedures in place to verify that their nationals who live
abroad have not acquired a foreign nationality. For example, German
citizens who live in the US must submit a recently notarized copy of
their valid US Green Card, when they apply to renew their German
passports. The fact that they possess their Green Card would be
accepted as proof that they have not acquired US citizenship (since
Green Cards are normally handed back to the US government when
naturalization takes place.)

Rich Wales

"Jenney & Mark" wrote:

> I remember a thread in here a long time ago about an
> American woman who moved to the UK because she hated
> living in the US. She went to the US Embassy in London
> (I think) and renounced her US citizenship. . . .
> Problem was, she'd had a change of heart and wanted
> to return to the US after all. Her boyfriend had
> started the thread to ask what she needed to do to
> go back to the US -- could she just order a new US
> passport?, etc.

I had no luck finding the above thread either -- but in general,
AFAIK, renunciation of US citizenship is irrevocable and can NOT
be undone simply because one has "had a change of heart".

Also, US law doesn't care if someone who renounces US citizenship
has any other citizenship. Some other countries (Canada for sure,
and I think the UK as well) will not allow one of their citizens
to renounce citizenship if the end result will be that the person
ends up being stateless, but the US has no such restriction.

It's my understanding that US consular officials are instructed
to handle renunciation requests carefully, and to make very, VERY
sure that a person seeking to renounce his/her US citizenship is
fully aware of the serious and irreversible consequences before
accepting such a request.

Rich Wales [email protected] 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.

Mh

In article <[email protected]> ,
Rich Wales <[email protected]> wrote:

[cut]


    >In the case of some other countries (Germany, Singapore, and
    >India come to my mind, though there are many others), this sort
    >of notice =would= result in the person in question losing his old
    >citizenship -- not specifically because the US statement said the
    >person in question had renounced his old citizenship, but because
    >those countries do not generally permit their citizens to hold
    >any other citizenship under any conditions, and as soon as they
    >find out that someone has acquired US (or any other foreign)
    >citizenship, they will revoke his/her old citizenship on account
    >of their blanket prohibition against multiple citizenship. (The
    >same thing would happen, for example, if a person from such a
    >country were to become a naturalized citizen of Canada or the UK
    >-- countries which do not have any sort of renunciatory verbiage
    >in their naturalization ceremonies.)

Been there, done that. Lost german citizenship when I became a Canadian.

[cut]

    >This still leaves unaddressed, of course, the whole issue of
    >exactly what the renunciatory statement in the US naturalization
    >oath means in theory, or in practice, and how (if at all) it is
    >enforced by anyone. The proposal in H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 does
    >not say anything at all about this point. Another bill currently
    >before Congress (H.R. 3938) would, if enacted, put significant
    >teeth into the renunciatory part of the US oath, but this bill
    >is currently languishing in a House subcommittee and appears to
    >have absolutely no prospect of becoming law.

Wow, I hope so! That's insane - just for using my Canadian passport, I could
be subjected to a fine of $10K and/or a year in jail.

Yet, everywhere I check, it says I *SHOULD* use my Canadian passport (I
haven't been able to find a law, but I believe it's a US law when entering
the US to use a US passport, so I assume there's a similar Canadian law).

Well, that WOULD put a damper on ever visiting Canada again..

MH