Helm

I am considering applying for US citizenship because I would like to be
able to vote, etc. I am willing to fulfill my duties as a US citizen.
Nevertheless, I definitely do not want to give up my current
citizenship and I am still attached to my old country (which, for me,
does not conflict with my attachment to the US and its constitution).
Almost everybody I know who did get naturalized did not give up their
old citizenship. Though, in their oath they had to say the following:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
or citizen;"

So what's the deal with this? Isn't that a very clear statement to give
up any other citizenship? Most importantly, isn't that something that
could get me into trouble at some later time? Your opinion on this
matter is appreciated.

Thanks

Joe Feise

helm wrote on 05/11/06 22:42:

    > I am considering applying for US citizenship because I would like to be
    > able to vote, etc. I am willing to fulfill my duties as a US citizen.
    > Nevertheless, I definitely do not want to give up my current
    > citizenship and I am still attached to my old country (which, for me,
    > does not conflict with my attachment to the US and its constitution).
    > Almost everybody I know who did get naturalized did not give up their
    > old citizenship. Though, in their oath they had to say the following:
    >
    > "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
    > abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
    > state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
    > or citizen;"
    >
    > So what's the deal with this? Isn't that a very clear statement to give
    > up any other citizenship? Most importantly, isn't that something that
    > could get me into trouble at some later time? Your opinion on this
    > matter is appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks
    >


A lot of other countries do not care what you say in front of US officials. They
still consider you to be their citizen, regardless of the oath statement.
For a lot more info, check out Rich Wales' Dual Citizenship FAQ:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

-Joe
--
I am not a lawyer.
For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.

hioeuckj

Thanks for your reply. I will check out this site tomorrow. I have one
question, though. You seem to address the potential problems posed by
the other country when taking on another citizenship, in this case US
citizenship. But what about the US? What is the US' stand on this?

Thanks

sgallagher

helm wrote:
    > I am considering applying for US citizenship because I would like to be
    > able to vote, etc. I am willing to fulfill my duties as a US citizen.
    > Nevertheless, I definitely do not want to give up my current
    > citizenship and I am still attached to my old country (which, for me,
    > does not conflict with my attachment to the US and its constitution).
    > Almost everybody I know who did get naturalized did not give up their
    > old citizenship. Though, in their oath they had to say the following:
    > "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
    > abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
    > state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
    > or citizen;"
    > So what's the deal with this? Isn't that a very clear statement to give
    > up any other citizenship? Most importantly, isn't that something that
    > could get me into trouble at some later time? Your opinion on this
    > matter is appreciated.

What you have said is true, and the "renunciatory statement" of the
naturalization oath is as you have stated it. But, keep in mind, from
a legal standpoint that it is the laws of each individual country that
determine whether a person is or is not one of its citizens. Many
countries do not view the US naturalization oath's renunciatory
statement as having any legal effect under their laws. Therefore, just
because a person became a US citizen does not mean that he might not
still hold his original citizenship, in spite of this.

In other words, a person can become a US citizen, take the oath, and
intend to honor all parts of it including the renunciatory statement,
but if the original country says that he is still one of its citizens,
then he is still one of its citizens. The same way that a person's US
citizenship is determined by US law alone, a person's "other"
citizenship is determined by the "other" country's law alone.

For example, a British citizen must go to a British consulate and file
a request to give up his nationality. Making a statement of
renunciation before US officials does not meet this requirement, so
when someone from Britain takes US citizenship, he ends up keeping his
British citizenship also.

That is why many people who naturalize in the US, end up with dual
citizenship in spite of the renunciatory statement.

Keep in mind that there are some countries that WILL automatically take
away citizenship from a person who does take another citizenship. But
there are also many countries that do not. Even the US State
Department acknowledges that some naturalized US citizens may still be
holding their original citizenships and that this may make them subject
to requirements of that original country that the US might not be able
to protect them from if they were to ever travel back to the original
country. There are probably many naturalized US citizens who do not
realize that they still hold their original citizenship.

What you'd need to find out is whether the Netherlands will take away
your citizenship if you became a US citizen. If they do not take it
away, then you would end up having both citizenships. Make sure you
find out from a Dutch Consulate what would happen if you were to
naturalize in the US, and get something in writing if you can.

If it is allowed by the Netherlands, then once becoming a US citizen,
you would have to obey the laws that apply to the citizens of both
countries. You would have to enter the US on a US passport, and
identify yourself to US officials as being a US citizen.

Here's a good website that talks about the US policy on dual
nationality. It's not official, but it's written in easy to understand
language.

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

Good luck,

Stephen Gallagher

sgallagher

    > What you'd need to find out is whether the Netherlands

Don't know what got me into thinking you were Dutch when you said you
were Swiss. Sorry about that. I had just been thinking about a freind
of mine who is Dutch.

Anyway, just contact the Swiss Government to verify your nationality
issue.

I believe that they won't take away your citizenship if you naturalize
abroad, but you want to make sure.

Stephen

Voltes34

Important and Forgotten Words:
Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN



"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in
good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be
treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or
origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an
American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an
American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this
excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and
civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to
which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is
the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is
a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907


    | helm wrote on 05/11/06 22:42:
    |
    | > I am considering applying for US citizenship because I would like to be
    | > able to vote, etc. I am willing to fulfill my duties as a US citizen.
    | > Nevertheless, I definitely do not want to give up my current
    | > citizenship and I am still attached to my old country (which, for me,
    | > does not conflict with my attachment to the US and its constitution).
    | > Almost everybody I know who did get naturalized did not give up their
    | > old citizenship. Though, in their oath they had to say the following:
    | >
    | > "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
    | > abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
    | > state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
    | > or citizen;"
    | >
    | > So what's the deal with this? Isn't that a very clear statement to give
    | > up any other citizenship? Most importantly, isn't that something that
    | > could get me into trouble at some later time? Your opinion on this
    | > matter is appreciated.
    | >
    | > Thanks
    | >
    |
    |

Folinskyinla

Hi:

This is an interesting area of philosphical thought. It pays to remember that if one is a United States Citizen, the UNITED STATES considers that person a US Citizen. The idea of "dual" citizenship comes up when a person is "claimed" by TWO states.

Some states simply don't have the idea of voluntary expatriation at all. If such a person naturalizes as an American Citizen, not only will the home country refuse to recognize the renunciation in the oath, they won't even allow the person to tell their home country "goodbye."

The source of citizenship can be a source of debate. The 1897 "Wong Kim Ark" case from the Supreme Court has an interesting discussion. [BTW, I've seen several discussions of the "anchor baby" which treats the statements of one of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, as indicating the 14th Amendment had a meaning different than the Senator's statement. Haven't figured that one out.]

A few years back I read a scholarly article on the concept of sole allegiance -- and it seems that the idea is one that has been treated as axiomatic -- an assumption rather than a conclusion. TR's statement is conclusionary in nature -- well spoken, but still conclusionary.

I remember that the discussion noted that "allegiance" is a two-way street. Anyone who has served in the military will know this -- look at the practice of salutes. Soldiers and officers EXCHANGE salutes. In fact, an officer will render salutes a lot more often than an enlisted person. [BTW, in combat areas, saluting is often prohibited -- it serves as a good means of target identification of officers].

If you accept the idea of allegiance as a two-way street, then it follows that every citizen is entitled to the "protection" of his nation-state when traveling abroad. With the growth of international human rights law and "crimes against humanity", the need for the "protection" of one state has lessened. In many ways, this can be examined as an extension of the international laws against piracy -- EVERY person, regardless of nationality, is entitled to the "protection" by ALL nation-states.

The article was a scholarly and not a practical one -- but I found it to be thought provoking.

As a practical note -- the problems inherent in dual nationality when the two states engage in war, have appeared to be a fairly minor problem. If US born Kawakita had served as a soldier in the Imperial Japanese Army as a conscripted soldier rather than on the civilian staff of a POW camp engaging in torture, he would not have had a problem. I understand that the WWII Wehrmacht actually had quite a few American born Germans in their ranks -- and it was no problem. In the case of conscripts, it was not treated as an act of treason or expatriation.

Helm

I have to say that all of this is a bit confusing. On one hand one
could make the point that the "renunciatory statement" is just a
statement. In other words it is something said at that point in time
but nothing that the newly naturalized citizen is supposed to pursue
ACTIVELY (by submitting an application to renounce citizenship of the
original country) after taking the oath. On the other hand assume that
the original country does allow its citizens to give up their
citizenships. In that case it could be claimed that the oath was not
taken in good faith and that therefore the person should/could be
stripped of the US citizenship at will at any point in the future.

Looking at the link
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_p.../cis_1753.html given by one
of the respondents seems to take an official stance on this matter:

"...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."

This could suggest that indeed the former interpretation given above is
common practice, i.e. one does not have to actively go to the embassy
to renounce the original citizenship. Of course it could also be
claimed that the second sentence just covers the case where the
original country of citizenship does not allow its citizens to give up
their citizenship.

Also while there is NO US LAW saying that somebody has to CHOSE between
one or the other citizenship the OATH (in contrast to a law) REQUIRES
TO DO SO??!!!

I think the statement of Roosevelt quoted by somebody shows the moral
aspect of this. Of course, this is nothing binding and it also has to
be considered in that time's context which does not necessary apply
one-to-one today.

I guess my biggest worry is that the US might at some point in time
(for instance in case of war, etc) change their mind and strip me off
my US citizenship, kick me out of the country and not let me back in
(or only after giving up my original citizenship).

Mh

In article <[email protected] >,
Voltes34 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Important and Forgotten Words:
    >Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
    >"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in
    >good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be
    >treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
    >discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or
    >origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an
    >American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance
    >here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an
    >American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this
    >excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and
    >civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to
    >which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is
    >the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is
    >a loyalty to the American people."
    >Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Try saying that here in California sometime in a public place.. :-)

MH

Folinskyinla

Hi:

There is nothing confusing about it all. US law requires the renuciation as part of UNITED STATES procedure. As far as the United States is concerned, you are a United States Citizen. The question is whether or not the FOREIGN country recognizes that renunciation.

Once you obtain naturalization, the law of losing it is the SAME whether natural born or naturalized. The law used to be quite strict on the retention requirements and it used to be easy to lose citizenship by various acts which were performed with no intention to "expatriate."

Starting with the 1967 "Afroyim v Rusk" case, the Supreme Court has essentially eliminated involuntary or inadvertant expatriation as a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL law.

Mh

In article <[email protected] .com>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
    >> What you'd need to find out is whether the Netherlands
    >Don't know what got me into thinking you were Dutch when you said you
    >were Swiss. Sorry about that. I had just been thinking about a freind
    >of mine who is Dutch.

Funny you should say that - I thought the same thing too.
I think it was his "Nevertheless" at the beginning of a line when my brain
was searching for a country name while skimming the article looked a lot
like "Netherlands". :-)

MH