Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (17534)	9/24/2004 8:34:06 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I am not an expert in that area of the law, but I've heard some people say the rules have changed.... then I found this on Google, though again I'm not sure of the accuracy: Loss of citizenship (INA § 349, 8 USC § 1481) Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include: becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18; serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US; working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant); formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US. The primary effect of recent developments in the US regarding dual citizenship has been to add the requirement that loss of citizenship can only result when the person in question intended to give up his citizenship. At one time, the mere performance of the above (or certain other) acts was enough to cause loss of US citizenship; however, the Supreme Court overturned this concept in the Afroyim and Terrazas cases, and Congress amended the law in 1986 to require that loss of citizenship would result only when a potentially "expatriating" (citizenship-losing) action was performed voluntarily and "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". On 16 April 1990, the State Department adopted a new policy on dual citizenship, under which US citizens who perform one of the potentially expatriating acts listed above are normally presumed not to have done so with intent to give up US citizenship. Thus, the overwhelming majority of loss-of-citizenship cases nowadays will involve people who have explicitly indicated to US consular officials that they want to give up their US citizenship. .... 1986 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 99-653) On 14 November 1986, President Reagan signed Public Law 99-653 (100 Stat. 3655; 1986 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 6182). This bill amended the INA to conform to the requirements of various Supreme Court decisions on loss of US citizenship. The most significant change made by Pub.L. 99-653 was to the preamble of Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USC § 1481]. The revised wording made it clear that an action, in order to result in loss of citizenship, needed to be performed voluntarily and with the intention of giving up US citizenship. This change brought the law into line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Vance v. Terrazas. Pub.L. 99-653 also revised the conditions under which foreign military service could result in loss of citizenship. Previously, a person could lose US citizenship through foreign military service unless said service were approved in advance by US officials. Also, a US citizen who entered a foreign military service prior to age 18 could lose his US citizenship if he had been given an option by said foreign country to leave its army at age 18, and failed to do so. All this was replaced by a new provision, under which foreign military service would result in loss of US citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with intent to relinquish US ties (see above) -- and, additionally, only if the person served as an officer, and/or if the foreign army were engaged in hostilities against the US. Note that the Supreme Court had previously ruled, in Mandoli v. Acheson, that coerced foreign military service could not result in loss of US citizenship. Previously, if a US citizen were also a citizen of a foreign country, had spent one or more periods of time in that country totalling at least ten years, and performed any of the listed actions that could result in loss of US citizenship, the action in question would be conclusively presumed to have been performed voluntarily and without duress (i.e., the person in question would not have a legal right to present contrary evidence in a court case). This provision had been put on shaky ground as a result of the Terrazas ruling, and it was repealed by Pub.L. 99-653. Prior to Pub.L. 99-653, a naturalized citizen who moved away from the US and set up permanent residence abroad within five years following naturalization risked revocation of his citizenship -- on the grounds that his promise (made on the citizenship application) to reside permanently in the US after naturalization had been made in bad faith. This five-year period was reduced to one year. (In 1994, this provision was repealed altogether.) richw.org

To: JeffA who wrote (17534)	9/24/2004 8:56:04 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Do please explain that to sandintoes. Thanks.

To: JeffA who wrote (17534)	9/24/2004 9:29:26 AM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I think they can I know of several people born in the US of Irish ancestry who applied for Irish citizenship and hold dual I know of a Mexican couple who had a baby this last year in the US and took him to Mexico this summer to start the paperwork for his Mexican citizenship - so obviously you can hold dual with Mexico then there is an American who married an Austrian, had a baby here and the baby has dual citizenship a good friend of mine married an American, she is Dutch, they adopted babies from Korea and Mexico - I think they have all kinds of dual citizenships in that family maybe it's country by country, circumstance by circumstance