US vs Canadian citz

[alphazip]

For the record, current U.S. Department of State policy takes the position that all potentially expatriating acts are done with the intent to maintain U.S. citizenship. Note that this is current policy, not law or regulation. A change in administration could result in a change of this policy, without notice and retroactively.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk). Therefore, a change in rules that would deprive millions of U.S. citizens of their citizenship would have constitutional problems.

 

[Natan]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. (See:...). Therefore, a change in rules that would deprive millions of U.S. citizens of their citizenship would have constitutional problems.

Current State Department policy treats most potentially expatriating acts as lacking the intent to renounce citizenship, unless their is sufficient evidence to the contrary. The State Department could easily, and has in the past, taken the position that potentially expatriating acts are done WITH the intent to renounce citizenship, unless the citizen can satisfy the State Department that their intent was to maintain their citizenship. Whether the State Department is lenient or rigorous in the way it determines a citizen's intent is purely a matter of political policy.

In a worse case example of rigorous determination, the State Department could decide that a citizen intended to renounce citizenship when they committed a potentially expatriating act. They could, for instance, take an ambiguous statement made by the citizen on a blog as evidence of their intention to renounce and, therefore, revoke citizenship. The hapless EX-citizen could contest the revocation, but the case could take 18+ years to wend its way through the courts, costing between $50,000 and $150,000; and would likely have to be done from outside the country (an ex-citizen has no right to enter the country and might be denied entry by the CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Patrol] if it were [even arbitrarily] decided they intended to immigrate to the USA -- there are no judicial reviews of CBP decisions). There is no guarantee that the ex-citizen would win their case, as courts tend to give the Executive Branch a great deal of discretion, especially in cases that require the determination of legally difficult to define concepts, like "intent". Should the citizen, at any time, run out of money to proceed, they would lose their case "with prejudice", which means they would not be able to reopen the case when they had more money. It is unlikely a dual citizen would receive any sympathy from the American public for their plight, even if they did manage to get their case mentioned in the media. Politicians would likely side against the ex-citizen in any public debate, as that would be more popular with voters.

Granted, the above is a worse case scenario. But when it comes to U.S. citizenship, there is wisdom in protecting oneself from worse case scenarios when committing a potentially expatriating act. One does not want the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to ever have a reason to question one's intent to maintain U.S. citizenship. Such questions could eventually result in a loss of U.S. citizenship "in fact", regardless of what the law provides for "in theory".

 

[keesio]

One thing I should add is the if you do take another citizenship, you are locked out of certain government positions in the US, like POTUS or CIA agent. You must only hold a US citizenship to qualify for those jobs.

 

[alphazip]

One thing I should add is the if you do take another citizenship, you are locked out of certain government positions in the US, like POTUS or CIA agent. You must only hold a US citizenship to qualify for those jobs.

Actually, I know of no requirement that the president not be a dual, though being one would likely be a disadvantage in an election. I realize that Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, which he had previously denied even possessing*, but that was for political reasons, not because of a requirement to do so. However, most jobs requiring a security clearance require allegiance only to the USA, even if the second citizenship is from a country that is considered an ally.

*despite being a Harvard-educated lawyer, he said he accepted what his mother told him...that he was a U.S. citizen only...as fact.