Dual Nationality for US Citizens....(from the US government's view...)

[antda 13]

Hi Everyone,

I was doing a search online, and I found the following information about dual nationality/citizenship for US Citizens, from the US government's point of view....

Hope this helps you all too!

Ant

Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or 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. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Edited April 23, 2010 by Ant+D+BabyA

[cle_w2000 2]

So your baby would be a dual citizen of US and Canada already. How about you? The same?

[NickD 202]

Hi Everyone,

I was doing a search online, and I found the following information about dual nationality/citizenship for US Citizens, from the US government's point of view....

Hope this helps you all too!

Ant

Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or 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. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://travel.state....s/cis_1753.html

Already posted that in why is your country of birth listed on your US passport very long thread. It was self assuring to me that the DOS is cognizant that a naturalized citizen is forced to maintain a foreign passport if they want to visit their mom. But they don't admit they are too blame since they insist on putting the place of birth on the passports THEY issue.

Even at that, a gray area when you read other regulations from the USCIS, key problem here is two different agencies with different regulations making seemingly contradictory regulations. Been in situations like this before in a court of law by contradictory regulations between our some odd 1,525 agencies. You have to be damn sure your attorney is a better BSer than the opposition, but still expensive for the defense. But that what happens when you have a country ran by attorneys, more concerned about getting rich than justice.

Each agency is rather arrogant, good example of this and I firmly believe this, CIA won't listen to the FBI that caused 9/11, and with an idiot at the helm, the cure was to form yet another agency with even more arrogance.

My letters to my senator, congressman, and even the president on this subject were a waste of time, claim they have more serious problems to deal with. And Colombia is already 500 bucks richer, bucks that should stay here for our economy.

Think twice now when I play a game of chess, know exactly how a pawn feels like, we are the pawns. When I meet one of our leaders, goes through my mind how much fun it would be to pound the ####### out of them, and that I know I can do, they trained me how to do that. Just a bunch of big mouths that make the laws and think they know everything. But they have the power to make life completely miserable for the rest of us so have to be tactful. I hate being tactful.

[Deb+Steve 13]

It's very ambiguous - I've studied it because I would like to move back to Aus when my husband retires from the military and he would like me to be a USC before that happens. This is the best FAQ I've found regarding this issue:-

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

[NickD 202]

It's very ambiguous - I've studied it because I would like to move back to Aus when my husband retires from the military and he would like me to be a USC before that happens. This is the best FAQ I've found regarding this issue:-

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

Found this statement interesting in how Bush made travel from Canada inconvenient or darn right miserable.

One reason for such caution is that the new State Department guidelines are the result of an administrative policy, and not an act of Congress. In theory, a future administration could revoke the new policy at any time by the stroke of a pen -- though I am not aware of any suggestion that this is likely to happen.

Inconvenient when traveling via road through the border, darn right miserable with the airlines at Toronto just because that idiot from Texas didn't think the Canadians were doing enough to check on suspected terrorists. And we spent millions if not billions there to make life miserable for us. Didn't anyone tell that idiot the terrorists came here legally?

That new guy won't change it, he is too politically correct to change it and do to so would admit to wasting billions of dollars of the taxpayers money for essentially nothing but misery for those that frequent Canada since many of our business partners are there. So we have to live with this ####### even after an over 200 year perfect history.

Just a stroke of the pen by an idiot, I love that. Also creates another screwed up agency to prevent stuff like this, just what we need, more agencies.

[antda 13]

So your baby would be a dual citizen of US and Canada already. How about you? The same?

Cle_w2000-Yes, I am still a dual citizen, of both the USA and Canada. From the Canada side of things, I have not legally given up my Canadian citizenship yet, so as far as I'm concerned I'm still Canadian. And Canada accepts dual citizenship too, so that's not a problem. As for my son, he's not a Canadian citizen yet. In order for him to be a Canadian citizen, I would have to apply for such. It's not too hard and doesn't cost too much for such a process, but I would rather not do such, as citizenship of any country is a big responsibility and I don't think that a minor child is ready for such. I would leave Canadian citizenship for him to decide by himself later on down the road, when he is old enough as an adult to do so. Lol..He has until age 28 to decide such, according to Canadian law..... If he wants Canadian citizenship, fine. If he doesn't, fine too. It's up to him, and I'll help him with whatever he decides....

Everyone-I'll reply to more posts on this message thead later.....

Lol.All this talk of my son..reminds me that I have to go out and buy more diapers and baby food...lol.....brb.....

Ant

[antda 13]

More replies..

NickD-Lol..Funny, how you sound like my husband when you say that the governemnt is contradictory in its regulations and rules......And yes, that is so true, indeed!

And yes, I totally agree about the birth country thing on the passport too (lol..I started that thread before...)

So to that issue, I say: If you (the government) insists on keeping my birth country/former country on my passport and other documents...Then I insist on keeping my former country's citizenship! It's as simple as that...

We all have to play by the same rules...You keep it, I keep it....It's fair....lol....

Each agency has its own set of rules, and they use these rules in "their" best interests....

One blames the other, one blames another....blah...

"The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing..."......

Yes, I agree too, we are all "pawns" in the game of "government chess"...

But in the end, it is the "pawn" who stands up for themeselves that gets the king.....Checkmate!

Already posted that in why is your country of birth listed on your US passport very long thread. It was self assuring to me that the DOS is cognizant that a naturalized citizen is forced to maintain a foreign passport if they want to visit their mom. But they don't admit they are too blame since they insist on putting the place of birth on the passports THEY issue.

Even at that, a gray area when you read other regulations from the USCIS, key problem here is two different agencies with different regulations making seemingly contradictory regulations. Been in situations like this before in a court of law by contradictory regulations between our some odd 1,525 agencies. You have to be damn sure your attorney is a better BSer than the opposition, but still expensive for the defense. But that what happens when you have a country ran by attorneys, more concerned about getting rich than justice.

Each agency is rather arrogant, good example of this and I firmly believe this, CIA won't listen to the FBI that caused 9/11, and with an idiot at the helm, the cure was to form yet another agency with even more arrogance.

My letters to my senator, congressman, and even the president on this subject were a waste of time, claim they have more serious problems to deal with. And Colombia is already 500 bucks richer, bucks that should stay here for our economy.

Think twice now when I play a game of chess, know exactly how a pawn feels like, we are the pawns. When I meet one of our leaders, goes through my mind how much fun it would be to pound the ####### out of them, and that I know I can do, they trained me how to do that. Just a bunch of big mouths that make the laws and think they know everything. But they have the power to make life completely miserable for the rest of us so have to be tactful. I hate being tactful.

Deb+Steve-Yes, you can keep your Aussie citizenship too....Might be a good thing, if you ever move back to Australia one day..Thanks for the link too..Helpful, indeed!..

It's very ambiguous - I've studied it because I would like to move back to Aus when my husband retires from the military and he would like me to be a USC before that happens. This is the best FAQ I've found regarding this issue:-

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

NickD-Lol..No, we don't need any more government agencies. We have enough of those already, and they can't even do their job right! I definitely agree about these new changes about travelling to Canada. Canadians mean no harm....

And yet beacause of the America's conflicts with other countries, Canadians have to suffer because of that...

Lol..But yet I understand they can't make an exception to the rule for Canada...

So we all have to live with it, regardless of country....

Anyways, Canada aside...

I agree that terrorists, criminials, illegals, etc. will find their way into the country, regardless....

So just because of a few bad apples, the rest of us good apples have to suffer....

Honestly, does anyone think that new security features, passports, etc. will deter them?

And how is creating any wars and global conflicts between other countries doing any good?

What a waste of taxpayer money, indeed!

Really, the money should be used for other things that will help the country, instead of harm it....

Take care of those in your own country, before meddling into other countries.....

Sigh....

Ant

Found this statement interesting in how Bush made travel from Canada inconvenient or darn right miserable.

Inconvenient when traveling via road through the border, darn right miserable with the airlines at Toronto just because that idiot from Texas didn't think the Canadians were doing enough to check on suspected terrorists. And we spent millions if not billions there to make life miserable for us. Didn't anyone tell that idiot the terrorists came here legally?

That new guy won't change it, he is too politically correct to change it and do to so would admit to wasting billions of dollars of the taxpayers money for essentially nothing but misery for those that frequent Canada since many of our business partners are there. So we have to live with this ####### even after an over 200 year perfect history.

Just a stroke of the pen by an idiot, I love that. Also creates another screwed up agency to prevent stuff like this, just what we need, more agencies.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Ant+D+BabyA