JAJ

Which is why it's usually better NOT to have more than one will, and that should usually be in your place of residence. Most jurisdictions will accept foreign wills for probate.

Only if you have assets somewhere that does NOT accept foreign wills should you normally contemplate a second will and in that situation, you have to be very careful for the reasons outlined above.

Apfelkuchen

Agreed. There is a difference between promising to renounce one's citizenship of a country and promising to renounce allegiance to a country of which one is a citizen. EDIT to add: Although it is possible that in doing the latter one might be committing treason!

As for the British end of things, I've just looked in my passport, and it (under the heading of 'Dual Nationality') specifically says: 'A person having some connection with a Commonwealth or foreign country (eg by birth, by descent through either parent, by marriage or by residence) may be a national of that country, in addition to being a British national.' That backs up what you said in post #10.

Dan725

Not as those two stand alone words its not, but when read in the entire context of the sentence it is effectively saying it.

Not that it matters in the slightest in reality, as we all know. It wouldn't even matter if the word "citizenship" was in there, there'd be no difference.

S Folinsky

The oath is a renunciation of "allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of who or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;..." [Emphasis added].

BTW, there was short period of about six months in 2003-2004 where an abbreviated form of the oath was used. Many people felt that the stripping of the archaic language detracted from the majesty of the Oath. Go figure. But that version also spoke about transfer of "allegiance."

Curiously, the Immigration & Nationality Act has no reference to the nature of United States "citizenship." It simply reflects the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution as to who is a United States Citizen. This came about as a result of the US Civil War [and I care not to get into the debate as to what to call that conflict. The US Army officially referred to it as the "War of Rebellion." But I digress].

When it comes to foreign "citizenship," the Immigration & Nationality Act pretty much does not use the term "citizen" as naked word. [I ran a quick WestLaw search of the INA and found one naked reference [without something along the lines of "or subject" to "citizen" which in context was foreign citizenship. There is also one reference to "Danish citizens."]

Section 101(a)(21) sets forth the following definition:

"The term 'national' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state."

[Yes, I know that 101(a)(36) purports to define "state", but it must be read in context with 101(a)(38) "United States" and the fact that one cannot owe "permanent allegiance" to any individual US state].

Note that INA section 308 notes that a person can be a "national" but not a "citizen" of the United States.

Bottom line -- "allegiance" is a necessary component of "nationality". So renunciation of prior "allegiance" is, by necessity, renunciation of prior citizenship.

Squirrel

I believe if his dad had been British and he was born in '75 in the US, he'd automatically be considered a Brit and just have to apply for a passport. As it's his mum that's the Brit, I think he has to register as a citizen and take a citizenship oath.

At least this was the case up to a few years ago. They changed the law because the limit was Feb 61 for foreign born children to British months, and some people who were born abroad before that date were naturally quite narked that they couldn't get citizenship but their younger siblings could. So the law was changed and the date either shifted further back, or abolished as with British fathers. Whether they also did away with the need to register for citizenship I do not know.

ian-mstm

I read as well as you do, my friend. Quite simply, your interpretation is incorrect.


I disagree... and my interpretation is correct.

Ian

ian-mstm

No, it isn't... and "effectively" is not the same as "actually".

Ian

ian-mstm

Am I the only one who understands that words have meaning... and that you can't claim that a word means something it, in fact, doesn't? Do none of you understand that?

The words "allegiance and fidelity" taken either separately or together, are not magically imbued with the essence of the word "citizenship".

Further, for my learnéd friend, if the wording in the law is imprecise, then it is imprecise... and no amount of reasoning will clarify that imprecision. The law can dance around an issue without ever actually calling a spade a spade... but until the law specifically says that a spade is a spade, then they aren't the same thing! So, if the language of the law isn't up to the task then the law needs to be changed to reflect the actual meaning - not the "almost" meaning.

And so we come full circle... and words have meaning.

Ian

Apfelkuchen

I did say earlier in the thread that I agreed with you, although I now think differently in light of Mr Folinsky's note that Section 101(a)(21) states: 'The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.' If (as the law defines it, albeit not the dictionary) being a national of a state entails allegiance to that state, then surely asking someone to renounce their allegiance to that state = asking them to renounce their nationality?

Unless of course you think there is a fundamental difference between the concepts 'national' and 'citizen'. I don't pretend to know, although in both US and UK immigration parlance they seem to be used synonymously.

Unless in one place, such as in Section 101(a)(21), the law defines the concept of a spade using words other than 'spade', and then substitutes those same words for 'spade' elsewhere.

S Folinsky

I'm in total agreement with that one. It is possible to owe allegiance and fidelity without being a citizen. But fidelity and allegiance is a necessary component of citizenship.

We could get philosophical about this -- it is an interesting area.

Steve_

I think it does say that you renounce citizenship to be honest, the power still exists in US law (haven't checked lately but I think it does) to force you to give it up, and that is reflected in the oath. However the State Dept. doesn't use the power, so it's all academic.

Steve_

Read up on the case law on it, there was a case in Puerto Rico where a guy successfully managed to convince a federal court that he was in fact a national of Puerto Rico and got Puerto Rican citizenship as a result.

If you read the Constitution, there are different levels of allegiance to the US, which was originally done to exclude indians in US territories from having citizenship, however today the only major example of it is American Samoa. American Samoans are citizens of American Samoa and have to apply for naturalization to become US citizens. This is because American Samoa does not have an organic act of government as required by the Constitution.

S Folinsky

Do you have a case citation? The only Federal case I am aware of is Colon v State, 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998) which states just the opposite. There is the 1997 Bras case, but that is from the Puerto Rico Supreme Court.

As for the Constitution, you are correct in noting different levels of allegiance therein -- this is the basis of the infamous Dred Scott decision. This was effectively "overruled" by the 14th Amendment which contains the only constitutional definition of "citizen" of the United States.

The Immigration & Nationality Act has additional groups who are United States Citizens who are not included in the constitutional definition. Indians born in the US are designated as US citizens -- this neatly dodges the issue of constitutional status of Indians although they seem to be statutory dual nationals. [The status of Indians and slaves are warts on the law which still have effects today, but I digress].

There is statutory classification of "non citizen nationals" which applies to "outlaying territories" which are now limited to American Samoa and Swains Island. [When I was in practice, I had a case involving a person who had had resident status in American Samoa and who daughter was born there. In order to immigrate him, we had to have US National Daughter naturalize as a US citizen]. [BTW, for I-130 purposes, a non-citizen national is considered a "lawful permanent resident" by case law which stretches the statute a bit].

Steve_

Yeah sorry, it's a Puerto Rican case, they based their decision in part on Federal case law.

There's also the strange legality of certain places like Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia who are in a "pact of free association" with the US, which is one step short of being a US territory and their citizens get preferential treatment in the US under the treaties.

There's a very odd situation with a First Nations reservation that straddles the US/Canadian border, I think it's the one in Québec, people born there who are considered members of the tribe are Canadian citizens by birth, British citizens by treaty (because the treaty was originally signed with the British prior to the Citizenship Act 1947) and also under the treaty they are allowed to remain in the US indefinitely so USCIS grants them LPR status.

rpjs

They might consider that they have British Citizenship by treaty, but I'd be sceptical that the UK would agree with them.