Citizenship vs. Permanent Resident

[john_and_marlene 162]

Becoming a citizen is not an "administrative" choice to be based on financial or travel advantage. It is an oath of allegiance where you are saying you choose to make this YOUR country.

There are certain certain rights and priveledges that go along with that. There are also some resposibilities that go along with that too.

I am shocked to see potential military service listed as a con (even though it has nothing to do with whether you are a LPR or citizen). All of those currently serving are volunteers. Do you suppose those that volunteered view military service was a negative thing?

Jury duty is just that -- a duty -- one of those responsibilities of being a citizen and is also not a negative thing.

The choice should be based upon allegiance. I don't see anything wrong with remaining here as a LPR for the rest of your life if your allegiance is truly to your home country. I don't think that makes you a "bad" person--in fact, if that's where your allegiance lies, it is the honorable course.

Base this decision on where you stand with regard to the concepts and ideals and policies of the United States and whether you want to swear allegiance to those.

[internetkafe 0]

Becoming a citizen is not an "administrative" choice to be based on financial or travel advantage. It is an oath of allegiance where you are saying you choose to make this YOUR country.

There are certain certain rights and priveledges that go along with that. There are also some resposibilities that go along with that too.

I am shocked to see potential military service listed as a con (even though it has nothing to do with whether you are a LPR or citizen). All of those currently serving are volunteers. Do you suppose those that volunteered view military service was a negative thing?

Jury duty is just that -- a duty -- one of those responsibilities of being a citizen and is also not a negative thing.

The choice should be based upon allegiance. I don't see anything wrong with remaining here as a LPR for the rest of your life if your allegiance is truly to your home country. I don't think that makes you a "bad" person--in fact, if that's where your allegiance lies, it is the honorable course.

Base this decision on where you stand with regard to the concepts and ideals and policies of the United States and whether you want to swear allegiance to those.

Have you heard about the concept and practice of dual citizenship? There are people with 3-4 citizenships even. What is that ####### of allegience you talk about? In which century are you living?

'Nothing wrong with remaining as LPR for the rest of your life'? Why should they do that? Pay taxes, bear all the burden of living in the US but not benefit from the advantages of citizenship? Do you think people are that sadistic?

Ideals, policies of the US? Do all US citizens support these ideals and policies? If so what does 34% approval rating mean?

I think the government should test each and every US citizen as it does people applying for naturalization. I am sure at least 34% would fail. That should be a way of measuring their 'allegience' to their home country. Citizens failing this test should lose their citizenship and be deported.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Becoming a citizen is not an "administrative" choice to be based on financial or travel advantage. It is an oath of allegiance where you are saying you choose to make this YOUR country.

There are certain certain rights and priveledges that go along with that. There are also some resposibilities that go along with that too.

I am shocked to see potential military service listed as a con (even though it has nothing to do with whether you are a LPR or citizen). All of those currently serving are volunteers. Do you suppose those that volunteered view military service was a negative thing?

Jury duty is just that -- a duty -- one of those responsibilities of being a citizen and is also not a negative thing.

The choice should be based upon allegiance. I don't see anything wrong with remaining here as a LPR for the rest of your life if your allegiance is truly to your home country. I don't think that makes you a "bad" person--in fact, if that's where your allegiance lies, it is the honorable course.

Base this decision on where you stand with regard to the concepts and ideals and policies of the United States and whether you want to swear allegiance to those.

Have you heard about the concept and practice of dual citizenship? There are people with 3-4 citizenships even. What is that ####### of allegience you talk about? In which century are you living?

'Nothing wrong with remaining as LPR for the rest of your life'? Why should they do that? Pay taxes, bear all the burden of living in the US but not benefit from the advantages of citizenship? Do you think people are that sadistic?

Ideals, policies of the US? Do all US citizens support these ideals and policies? If so what does 34% approval rating mean?

I think the government should test each and every US citizen as it does people applying for naturalization. I am sure at least 34% would fail. That should be a way of measuring their 'allegience' to their home country. Citizens failing this test should lose their citizenship and be deported.

I'm sorry you are so bitter. I guess I'm odd that I think a person's integrity is to be valued and that an oath means what it says.

[pax 0]

That's a bit harsh (man, that should be my VJ tagline), don't you think? People make the decision to take U.S. citizenship for a variety of equally valid reasons, and I certainly think that it's quite possible and proper to retain more than one valid citizenship. Plenty of other countries also allow for such possibilities, and it pleases me that we've moved past a time in history when situations like the ones in which many, many VJers find themselves are recognized with compassion and sensibility.

The dual citizenship FAQs to which Meauxna has often referred spell out the responsibilities of dual citizens, which are really no different from the responsibilities of persons who are only American citizens. Anyone taking American citizenship, whether to replace one citizenship or to add to another, is aware of these responsibilities.

[pax 0]

Citizenship frequently carries with it legal obligations relating to taxes, military service, and/or travel restrictions. Again, since countries usually insist on dealing with their citizens without regard to any other citizenships they might hold, and tend to frame their laws regarding citizenship obligations without regard for the laws of other countries, a dual citizen could possibly find that a country which considers him a citizen, but in which he does not live, expects him to pay taxes (possibly in addition to taxes he is already paying in his country of residence); considers him liable to be drafted into its army (even if he has already served or is currently serving in the other country's army); and may forbid him to travel to certain countries, including possibly his other country of citizenship.

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

[john_and_marlene 162]

That's a bit harsh (man, that should be my VJ tagline), don't you think? People make the decision to take U.S. citizenship for a variety of equally valid reasons, and I certainly think that it's quite possible and proper to retain more than one valid citizenship. Plenty of other countries also allow for such possibilities, and it pleases me that we've moved past a time in history when situations like the ones in which many, many VJers find themselves are recognized with compassion and sensibility.

The dual citizenship FAQs to which Meauxna has often referred spell out the responsibilities of dual citizens, which are really no different from the responsibilities of persons who are only American citizens. Anyone taking American citizenship, whether to replace one citizenship or to add to another, is aware of these responsibilities.

I think you misunderstand my point and I may have not stated it correctly. I don't have any problem with dual citizenships at all. My point was about what accepting U.S. citizenship should be about whether or not you maintain more than one citizenship. I think you can have allegiance to more than one country, but if you don't really mean the things in the oath of citizenship, then don't take it. I think there is a place for those who want to live here without being a citizen--I wasn't judging them harshly, I actually said I think it's an honorable choice. If they value their integrity enough to not take an oath that they really don't accept, I applaud them. I consider the comments that they should leave the country if they don't want to be a citizen to be the truly harsh comments. I welcome the idea that they can live here and not become a citizen if that's not what's in their heart.

[Boiler 45,402]

That's a bit harsh (man, that should be my VJ tagline), don't you think? People make the decision to take U.S. citizenship for a variety of equally valid reasons, and I certainly think that it's quite possible and proper to retain more than one valid citizenship. Plenty of other countries also allow for such possibilities, and it pleases me that we've moved past a time in history when situations like the ones in which many, many VJers find themselves are recognized with compassion and sensibility.

The dual citizenship FAQs to which Meauxna has often referred spell out the responsibilities of dual citizens, which are really no different from the responsibilities of persons who are only American citizens. Anyone taking American citizenship, whether to replace one citizenship or to add to another, is aware of these responsibilities.

I think you misunderstand my point and I may have not stated it correctly. I don't have any problem with dual citizenships at all. My point was about what accepting U.S. citizenship should be about whether or not you maintain more than one citizenship. I think you can have allegiance to more than one country, but if you don't really mean the things in the oath of citizenship, then don't take it. I think there is a place for those who want to live here without being a citizen--I wasn't judging them harshly, I actually said I think it's an honorable choice. If they value their integrity enough to not take an oath that they really don't accept, I applaud them. I consider the comments that they should leave the country if they don't want to be a citizen to be the truly harsh comments. I welcome the idea that they can live here and not become a citizen if that's not what's in their heart.

I had no desire to obtain US Citizenship, but the negatives that are imposed on LPR's made me re-consider.

You have to make your own choices based on your own circumstances, but I guess for most the Oath of Allegiance is just a small and relatively insignificant and inconsequential part of the process.

If you see it otherwise, fine, that is your choice.

If the oath was the only difference between being a LPR and a USC, then I would probably agree with.you But it is not.

[internetkafe 0]

I think you misunderstand my point and I may have not stated it correctly. I don't have any problem with dual citizenships at all. My point was about what accepting U.S. citizenship should be about whether or not you maintain more than one citizenship. I think you can have allegiance to more than one country, but if you don't really mean the things in the oath of citizenship, then don't take it. I think there is a place for those who want to live here without being a citizen--I wasn't judging them harshly, I actually said I think it's an honorable choice. If they value their integrity enough to not take an oath that they really don't accept, I applaud them. I consider the comments that they should leave the country if they don't want to be a citizen to be the truly harsh comments. I welcome the idea that they can live here and not become a citizen if that's not what's in their heart.

Why are you/they forcing an oath on LPRs who want to be naturalized?

OK, oath is a fact on the ground.

If you claim being impartial/neutral, why is not there a mechanism to keep US born citizens in the scope of their oath of allegience (if there is any for them)?

If you care so much about the implications of an oath (I understand your concern if it is in good faith) you should equally be concerned about the oaths people in office take. Do they always act in accordance with their oaths?

If you are sensitive about the oath of allegience by newly naturalized people you should equally be sensitive about US-born citizens's keeping their oath. Will their citizenship be revoked because some authority (?) decided that they did not mean their oaths? (Are you willing to go under a scrutiny in this respect and risk losing your citizenship?) But who is going to measure levels of allegience?

I think it is both racist and discriminatory to hold this oath on new citizens only as some sort of a weapon. I will take the oath and nobody will (should be able to) challenge me on the genuineness/sincerity of my oath. Because nobody challenges the sincerity of the oath US born citizens take. Nobody should dare challenge naturalized citizens in this respect. Otherwise one could inevitably recall Hitler's concept of citizenship.

My country does not require an oath for citizenship. But it allows for dual or more citizenships to be held.

It is archaic in my opinon if a country jealously wants to keep a monopoly of allegience of its citizens.

Edited March 3, 2006 by internetkafe

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Just a point about dual citizenship and military service -- It's probably an academic point, but I believe that technically you are not supposed to serve in a foreign army and retain US citizenship, which may be a problem if your other citizneship requires military service (Israel, Greece, France)

[JubJub 0]

I believe that relates to serving in a foreign army that is an enemy of the US. Obviously France, Greece and Israel are allies of the USA.

[meddykomp 0]

I think that USC might have to pay taxes to US even when living in another country if income exceeds a certain amount. That is the only disadvantage I can think of.

[Boiler 45,402]

I believe that relates to serving in a foreign army that is an enemy of the US. Obviously France, Greece and Israel are allies of the USA.

France is not, not sure about Greece.

[internetkafe 0]

But sure about the Jewish State? I am, too.

[Reba 2]

One of the advantages to becoming a U.S. citizen (rather than staying a PR) that I have read about is that there are benefits in the event of your US spouses death. I think they have something to do with the inheritance, taxes, etc.

I think I read that in the USCIS website in the Citizenship section.

Yes, I've heard that too. Does anybody know what specifically those benefits are?

Anybody know where to find this information? I've been looking on the USCIS and the IRS website and can't find anything about it. Is it something to do with social security benefits, or spouse's estate or what? Other than here on VJ, I've not heard or seen anything about this.

[Boiler 45,402]

One of the advantages to becoming a U.S. citizen (rather than staying a PR) that I have read about is that there are benefits in the event of your US spouses death. I think they have something to do with the inheritance, taxes, etc.

I think I read that in the USCIS website in the Citizenship section.

Yes, I've heard that too. Does anybody know what specifically those benefits are?

Anybody know where to find this information? I've been looking on the USCIS and the IRS website and can't find anything about it. Is it something to do with social security benefits, or spouse's estate or what? Other than here on VJ, I've not heard or seen anything about this.

It will be on the IRS site, basically there are certain exceptions but they only in this case apply to the spouse if a USC.