Omitting Place of Birth on a US Passport....

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

What you mention here is absolutely correct at analyzing it.

Everyone, check this link out - especially you Nick to see if there is some answer for you

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/94675.pdf

Very interesting link.

It explains many things, which are common sense anyways.

And it is relevant to your case. Looks like you'll have Jerusalem and not Israel in your place of birth.

And I suspected many countries would not accept a passport lacking a place of birth (US being definitely one of them).

[mikey78 6]

No, because your wife was born in Colombia and nothing is going to change that.

However, she will not be required to show a Colombian passport when entering Colombia.

Now how come you are so certain about how she would be treated at the border then? Or is that just a projection of your common sense...?

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Now how come you are so certain about how she would be treated at the border then? Or is that just a projection of your common sense...?

If she holds Colombian citizenship, she will be treated as a Colombian. If she gives up Colombian citizenship, she will not be a Colombian and she will be treated as a foreign citizen (in this case a US citizen).

It's not even common sense, it's what their laws say.

And it wasn't like officers were abusing her, they were just applying the laws of their country.

[NickD 202]

What you mention here is absolutely correct at analyzing it.

Everyone, check this link out - especially you Nick to see if there is some answer for you

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/94675.pdf

Interesting, really the only part of that 45 page document is this:

"NOTICE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS BORN ABROAD REGARDING

PLACES OF BIRTH TO BE WRITTEN IN PASSPORTS

United States citizens born abroad may list the city or town, rather than the

country, of their birth in United States passports when there is an objection

to the country listing as established by the Department of State. The city or

town name to be designated will be the name at the date of the passport

applicant’s birth, or the current name. The appropriate transliteration of the

city or town name will be established by the Office of the Geographer of the

U.S. Department of State.

Passport applicants who opt for the city or town of birth designation should

be aware that they may encounter difficulties in traveling to, or in obtaining

visas for entry into, certain foreign countries. A foreign country’s Embassy

or consulate may refuse to issue a visa that is required to enter that country

and the applicant will effectively be barred from traveling to that country.

An applicant who, having been denied a visa, requests a replacement

passport with the country listed as the place of birth designation will be

charged the normal issuance fee for the replacement passport.

Passport applicants should also be aware that although a visa may not be

required to enter a particular country, the traveler must often show a

passport at the port of entry. Entry may be denied by border officials based

on the city or town designation in the passport. The U.S. Department of

State will not be in a position to facilitate entry in such cases. The only

service U.S. Embassies or consulates can provide will be issuance of a

replacement passport with the country listed as the place of birth

designation. The traveler will be charged the normal issuance fee for the

replacement passport."

Unfortunately, not very many Bogota's in this world.

Reasons given for adding the place of birth from this document are:

" Government agencies and with the Congress. (a) In 1986, Congress directed the Comptroller General to

complete a study on the issue.

(b) The August 1987 General Accounting Office (GAO) report

(GAO 87-201) on this issue discusses two separate studies

conducted by the Department of State, one in 1977 and

another in 1986, to determine how the removal of the place

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs

7 FAM 1300 Appendix D Page 3 of 45

of birth would affect travel by American citizens.

© Those studies concluded that elimination of the place of birth

from the U.S. passport would cause considerable

inconvenience to the entire traveling population, since a

number of countries would still require place of birth

information. Travelers would have to provide place of birth

documentation, either when applying for a visa or when

entering the country, or run the risk of being denied entry to

those countries.

(d) The report also confirmed that U.S. law enforcement agencies

could not agree to its removal from the U.S. passport because

it is a vital data element used in anti-terrorist, anti-drug, and

anti-fraud programs.

In contrast to the above, one could argue the terrible job our military has done in informing the deaths of our troops. Wife got interested in a program on that on the military channel in particular the thousands of deaths that occurred to our troops in the Pacific during WW II in not telling their families. Do we really depend on our government for deaths within our families. Unfortunately my sister just called about an hour ago to let me me my niece with downs syndrome died just tonight, we depend more on our families to be informed in non-military deaths than the government.

Place of birth or rebirth of naturalized citizens could be considered a rebirth of the states they are living in when they take the oath. Natural born USC citizens are limited to one of fifty states. I don't feel that is a valid argument on their part.

So the USCIS is not doing their job with the help of the FBI in weeding out applicants for USC for and anti-fraud programs? I read that 1987 report that only included 25 countries, 22 of them felt the place of birth was not necessary.

But they can keep the place of birth for naturalized citizens, by becoming USC, they effectively have been reborn so simply list the state they were in when naturalized. The government knows where they are at, and can keep the rest of the information confidential. That would give naturalized citizens the same rights as natural born ones.

I am a natural born USC, would like to have the love of my life have the same rights I do.

[ziia 9]

Thankx for the quotes NickD. As I read them, my hair starts raising on my head. Well at least It gives it a nice volume, don't even have to use hair spray...all i have to do is stay on this thread and keep reading lol . Joking aside, it's very rare I read such easy to debate/defeat excuses from the US gov. in order to keep the COB in the US Passport.

Interesting, really the only part of that 45 page document is this:

© Those studies concluded that elimination of the place of birth

from the U.S. passport would cause considerable

inconvenience to the entire traveling population, since a

number of countries would still require place of birth

information. Travelers would have to provide place of birth

documentation, either when applying for a visa or when

entering the country, or run the risk of being denied entry to

those countries.

This one is the worst excuse of all. So, let me get this straight...US wants to keep the COB in the US passports to ensure other countries that we'll be entering their land NOT as US Citizens but as foreign Citizens even though we ARE US Citizens??? Aside from that, if we opt to give up the other country's Citizenship, then we're left with what? Harassment, mistreatment at the foreign border because we're regarded as traitors anyway. So who exactly is the US gov. "helping" here and how? is it because they're worried we'd be denied entry in 3 countries and that should over rule the other 22 who won't care that much about the COB being in the passport? Why? Why should 3 count more than 22? We have birth certificates if it's THAT important. Or better yet, why would you even want to go visit such country in the 1st place? Just kidding. This excuse doesn't hold any water if you ask me.

(d) The report also confirmed that U.S. law enforcement agencies

could not agree to its removal from the U.S. passport because

it is a vital data element used in anti-terrorist, anti-drug, and

anti-fraud programs.

Kind of like...discrimination you mean?

The COB is the determining factor in terrorism and drug trafficking? Not so much the passport they hold, where they grew p and such but where they were when their mother gave birth? That is a vital information? lol Not citizenship, passport, travels, "friends" and affiliations but COB? That's funny!

Dangerous people with a shady background wouldn't have the US Citizenship in the first place! . So...this doesn't hold water either.

But they can keep the place of birth for naturalized citizens, by becoming USC, they effectively have been reborn so simply list the state they were in when naturalized. The government knows where they are at, and can keep the rest of the information confidential. That would give naturalized citizens the same rights as natural born ones.

I am a natural born USC, would like to have the love of my life have the same rights I do.

Edited March 11, 2010 by ziia

[sachinky 465]

--Ohmygod. Yes, you're all USCs. And yes, you're deserving of the same treatment as natural-born citizens. And you ARE treated equally! By the U.S. government! Which is the only element in this equation that matters. Other countries couldn't give a damn, and I'm not sure why the U.S. is supposed to care or be responsible for how immigration officials behave in another country. (The only place you can legitimately claim "discrimination" by the U.S. government is the whole POTUS thing but funnily enough, most of you seem to be okay with that).

--"Aw Lordy! He looked at me meanly!"

"Oh man, those guys went through in five minutes. Why do we have to wait for ten minutes! Why does everything happen to us! Why, God why?"

Seriously, you lot make it sound like you were tortured physically when visiting your former countries.

--Your place of birth is a indisputable fact. Just another identification parameter. It has nothing to do with you how you feel. "Oh, I don't feel Hungarian." Well, my date of birth may say 1960 but I don't feel 50 -- I'll always be eighteen till I die. So no, you're not "reborn," Bogota, Colombia doesn't become New York, NY. No matter how spiritually you feel like you're born again. So going by that line of reasoning, they should put your date of naturalization in place of your date of birth? Seriously?

--Have you ANY idea how most tourists are treated at US POEs?

--I'm not sure why my citizenship or lack of USC should be a factor. Would it carry more weight if my USC husband said these things? We're arguing logically, most of you are taking it far too emotionally.

Edited March 11, 2010 by sachinky

[NickD 202]

--Ohmygod. Yes, you're all USCs. And yes, you're deserving of the same treatment as natural-born citizens. And you ARE treated equally! By the U.S. government! Which is the only element in this equation that matters. Other countries couldn't give a damn, and I'm not sure why the U.S. is supposed to care or be responsible for how immigration officials behave in another country. (The only place you can legitimately claim "discrimination" by the U.S. government is the whole POTUS thing but funnily enough, most of you seem to be okay with that).

--"Aw Lordy! He looked at me meanly!"

"Oh man, those guys went through in five minutes. Why do we have to wait for ten minutes! Why does everything happen to us! Why, God why?"

Seriously, you lot make it sound like you were tortured physically when visiting your former countries.

--Your place of birth is a indisputable fact. Just another identification parameter. It has nothing to do with you how you feel. "Oh, I don't feel Hungarian." Well, my date of birth may say 1960 but I don't feel 50 -- I'll always be eighteen till I die. So no, you're not "reborn," Bogota, Colombia doesn't become New York, NY. No matter how spiritually you feel like you're born again. So going by that line of reasoning, they should put your date of naturalization in place of your date of birth? Seriously?

--Have you ANY idea how most tourists are treated at US POEs?

--I'm not sure why my citizenship or lack of USC should be a factor. Would it carry more weight if my USC husband said these things? We're arguing logically, most of you are taking it far too emotionally.

As a natural born citizen of the USA traveling to a foreign country you do carry with you a stigma of the POTUS "President of the United States", our congress, our media, Hollywood, a Chicago gangster, our military, and any other impressions that country may have of the USA. Approached as being large, a big mouth, arrogant, and egotist that loves to put people down. That can change instantly if you treat other humans as humans with respect and courtesy.

My own impression of this country is not very good in my adult life dealing with our military and the corporate world with people that are constantly trying to take advantage of you, the ladder climbers, the greedy, co-workers that attempt to hang you to get ahead, really can't recall any CEO that I met that I would like for a friend. If you hire an attorney, more concerned of him/her screwing you than anybody else. That kind of thing. Since I had the skills needed, led me to set up my own business so I could chose whom I would deal with, yes there are also plenty of good hard working people in this country. Those are the kind of people prefer to associate with. But sure not easy to find those kind of people when dealing with any governmental agency. Don't even get a thank you when paying my huge property tax bill that makes life easy for them and you would think the people working for the USCIS or the SS would say thanks when you walk in for the fees the USCIS charges, or that big hunk the SS is taking by law of money out of your paycheck.

Sure wasn't nice being treated as a criminal when dealing with the USCIS nor is it nice when coming back to this country, but sure noticed my wife is treated far better with a US passport when coming back than when she had to carry that green card. For me it's easier to leave this country than to come back, for my wife, just the opposite, more difficult to enter a foreign country, easiest for her to come back.

Is this emotional or a matter of fact? What we are dealing with here on this subject, is not you as a human being, but a piece of paper and what is put on that piece of paper. Naturally, when you enter a foreign country you have to observe the laws of that country and good to learn exactly what those laws are. While some religions may teach a sin is only a sin if you know it's a sin and you intentionally commit that sin, the civil law is not that way. It's more like a pane of glass, and once it's broken, it's broken regardless of whether you knew it was a law or not. Ignorance of the civil law is no excuse.

Most of us have inherited the religion of our parents and many stick with it out of pure obedience without never knowing why or even question it. In like manner, most of us accept the laws of our country and don't question them, certainly not the basis of a democracy. Our forefathers definitely were not that way forming this once great country. Still insist that someone in this country teed off those twenty-seven terrorists, but we all are paying the price for whoever or whatever that was. It sure wasn't the hell, me or you for that matter.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/94675.pdf states that even by showing your place of birth on your US passport you still are a USC, whoever wrote that was an idiot. This is not true in practice and your immigrant spouse that has freely chosen to become a USC and went through all the pains to obtain that privilege does not have the same rights you as a natural born citizen. Is this an emotional statement or a pure hard fact of life?

So why aren't they including your height and weight as part of your description if they are so concerned about your identity? How about a fingerprint? Find it ironic if not stupid a person has a fingerprint on their green card, but not on their US passport. Nor is there a fingerprint on your USC certificate. Sure made me wonder why we had to make that third 430 mile trip to get the fingerprints again when it never appeared on my wife's certificate. That's another mystery, no where on the web nor anywhere else could I see what that certificate looked like until my wife received hers. Think they would even laminate it with plastic so it can't be changed or damaged with a spilled cup of coffee.

The bottom line is still a naturalized citizen is NOT like a natural born citizen and this is NOT an emotional statement, it's a fact.

Heard on the news yesterday about the growing number of Americans working and aiding Al Qaeda, but isn't that why we have law enforcement for?

[sachinky 465]

--"The bottom line is still a naturalized citizen is NOT like a natural born citizen and this is NOT an emotional statement, it's a fact."

I totally agree with you, Nick, on this one. Honestly, I'm not sure why height/weight, eye color and such are not put on the U.S. passport. My Indian passport contains my permanent address, both my parent's name and my spouse's name. I'm not sure if there are standardized procedures for passports or if countries just get to pick and choose categories apart from the obvious required ones.

--Now before ya'll accuse me of mocking you and not taking your "problems" seriously (it's true--I don't think it is a problem) I was just trying to give it some perspective. Presumably, this discrimation happens only at the immigration line. Once you're outside, I think it's safe to say that people don't take turns to look at your passport and then on viewing the place of birth continue to harass you or make pissy remarks about being a traitor and such. Sure, it's inconvenient and no one likes being harassed unnecessarily after a long flight. Honestly, I don't even think there is any real need for that place of birth. (Shockingly enough, I actually agree with you.) But it's there just like your age, sex, name and such. Should we remove those too? So what are you gonna do about it? Oh right, write some letters and sign a few petitions. Is it going to make a difference? Doubtful. I look forward to hearing about the countless replies to the letters you all write.

--Again, the chip idea is a good solution to the problem posed here. In agreement even with that. However, do I think that the DOS will insert new expensive microchips in all U.S. passports because a few naturalized citizens are facing a ten minute wait at the immigration counter while visiting their former country? Not likely. Especially when it is common knowledge that a U.S. passport is extremely coveted and usually gets you preferential treatment in most countries. Sure, there might be some bureaucratic jerks who enjoy being a royal PITA but somehow I don't see the U.S. government being terribly concerned with that.

--Now, chances are even if they somehow omit it or let you leave it blank, you will still face ill treatment from ignorant immigration officials. Unless you're white, blond, blue eyed, and speak English with a flawless American accent and have a name like John Smith. Your Indian/Spanish/East European/African sounding name might give it away. Your physical appearance is usually a dead giveaway. Sure, they might not ask you to produce any documents or get a passport of that countrry, but those "mean looks" that you're all complaining about will continue, regardless. For example, If I ever were to become a USC and did not have "Calcutta, India" written under the "place of birth" do you think the Calcutta immigration officials would just presume I'm an American just like the rest of them? My name and looks would instantly reveal I am a Bengali and they'd be correct.

--No, I'm no professor, just a recent history/political science college graduate who finds such concepts, laws and arguments interesting.

Edited March 11, 2010 by sachinky

[ziia 9]

No pun intended, but I have a feeling that people who come here with an attitude will have a very hard time integrating and living happy lives in US. Not because you can't but because you mock and reject what you don't understand. It is fine by me because at a certain scale, every immigrant who came here thought at the beginning that they're better then everyone else here and the rest is just a bunch of fools, but not so much to this extent. Eventually and hopefully you will understand how this country works, the laws, the rules and lifestyle, the rights and freedoms we enjoy and the blood that was shed by the founding fathers just for us to enjoy the treatment and respect all around this land. The American way, the civilized way is to write and sign petitions and letters you so easily make fun of and not to go around throwing stones or ripping people's hair off to prove a point as hey do in other countries. The voice of the people counts here because the power belongs to the people through voting. Representatives and Senators listen "to a piece of paper" more than they "listen" to a looter who's going to be sent in jail for vandalism. That is the American way and the sooner you understand it, the better and easier your life will be in this country.

But it's there just like your age, sex, name and such. Should we remove those too? So what are you gonna do about it? Oh right, write some letters and sign a few petitions. Is it going to make a difference? Doubtful. I look forward to hearing about the countless replies to the letters you all write.

No, they shouldn't remove the age, sex, name etc. That is not tied to any rule or standard.

However, do I think that the DOS will insert new expensive microchips in all U.S. passports because a few naturalized citizens are facing a ten minute wait at the immigration counter while visiting their former country? Not likely. Especially when it is common knowledge that a U.S. passport is extremely coveted and usually gets you preferential treatment in most countries. Sure, there might be some bureaucratic jerks who enjoy being a royal PITA but somehow I don't see the U.S. government being terribly concerned with that.

They already have the chips in the new passports. Those chips are on the cover of every US Passport now and through them they can not only track where the Passport but also it carries ALL the information the person already has written inside that passport, perhaps even more detailed. Every time you enter US with that Passport, the officer scans the chip and retrieves all the information on the screen of their computer.

The US governments is not terribly concerned about anything until the people you so jokingly put "write letters and petitions" to them. This is how people talk to the people they elect when they have a problem they need solved: through letters and votes. It's the American way.

--Now, chances are even if they somehow omit it or let you leave it blank, you will still face ill treatment from ignorant immigration officials. Unless you're white, blond, blue eyed, and speak English with a flawless American accent and have a name like John Smith. Your Indian/Spanish/East European/African sounding name might give it away. Your physical appearance is usually a dead giveaway. Sure, they might not ask you to produce any documents or get a passport of that countrry, but those "mean looks" that you're all complaining about will continue, regardless. For example, If I ever were to become a USC and did not have "Calcutta, India" written under the "place of birth" do you think the Calcutta immigration officials would just presume I'm an American just like the rest of them? My name and looks would instantly reveal I am a Bengali and they'd be correct.

No. US is a country formed by immigrants and so many here are not white. In fact I was just reading an article that starting this year, the number of minority babies has exceeded the number of white babies and by the year 2040, perhaps even sooner, the entire population of light skinned people will be a minority in this country. Every other person I meet in Chicago is far from being called "John Smith". Still some if no most were born here and carry names that don't sound so familiar because their parents were immigrants and kept the "tradition" in naming their kids. Some don't even speak or write English so well yet they live here but were born within certain families that chose to stay separated from the rest in the minority neighborhoods and bring the children to schools that educated them in the language of choice(not English). They are dark(er) skinned, carry minority names, don't speak or write English very well yet they can carry a US passport. This country is so mixed and so diverse that the movie TV standards of "American men" Hollywood throes out there when they release that film doesn't even make sense anymore in the real world(among the actual people who live here). The POE officers, here and overseas know that because they deal with people everyday. So yes, if they remove the COB off the Passport and leave it concealed in the chip for only US to see, then it would spare us a lot of mistreatment no matter what names and skin color we carry.

On a separate note: If an officer chooses to search my bag and search me for whatever reason that's protocol, as long as he doesn't bully me or asks me indirectly for some money to let me go. Having the COB on the Passport increases the chance for me to be harassed. We're not talking about nullifying or bringing that to a ZERO -It's not doable and we know that!! but if there is something US can do to help its citizens would be to decrease that chance, they should do it. I see no reason not to.

Edited March 11, 2010 by ziia

[NickD 202]

Mean looks, given a hard time, anything they want to add regarding ones identity is not a problem with me, my life is an open book and never concerned if anyone sees my medical records. And if any wants to steal my SS# and pay their money in my account, that is also perfectly fine with me. But let them try to draw from it.

Only thing that "inconveniences" us, is because my wife wants to visit her mom, she is forced to maintain Colombian citizenship to do so and as a US citizen. And because her son is still in Venezuela that is taking the USCIS and DOS forever for us to get him out. Also has to maintain a valid ID and passport for that country as well.

If not anything, maybe we could get a tax deduction on all of these additional expenses in maintaining dual or in our case, triple naturalization as the DOS calls it. No such thing as dual citizenship.

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Guys,

The problem is very simple.

And I honestly couldn't care less whether they listed my country of birth in my US passport or not.

The US Government is not going to do it because then it would have to be reciprocal and the US Government cannot afford to let people (I'm talking about people with foreign passports) in this country without knowing where they were born.

Especially those carrying a EU passport that does not need a visa to enter the US for 90 days and therefore did not go through a screening before and they just show up at the airport.

That's on security.

If we are talking about other countries making harsh comments at their POE, the US Government can NOT do anything about it. And even if they omitted the country of birth, most immigration officers in most countries will ask you where you were born. You would have to lie then.

And, if you want that just because you don't want to carry another passport according to the other countries' laws, then it's just plain wrong. What would you think if I insisted to enter the US on my Italian passport as a tourist when I am a US citizen also and I am required to use a US passport (This is EXACTLY the same problem seen from the other side)?

[ziia 9]

Just a little clarification on what I said about the Passport Chip:

"To facilitate the frequent travel of Americans living in border communities, and to meet the Department of Homeland Security’s operational needs along the land borders, the passport card has a vicinity-read radio frequency identification (RFID) chip. With this technology, Customs and Border Protection inspectors are able to access photographs and other biographical information stored in secure government databases before the traveler reaches the inspection station. There is no personal information written on the electronic chip itself. The only information contained on the chip is a unique number which points to a stored record contained in secure government databases."

http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3921.html

Edited March 11, 2010 by ziia

[ziia 9]

Guys,

The problem is very simple.

And I honestly couldn't care less whether they listed my country of birth in my US passport or not.

The US Government is not going to do it because then it would have to be reciprocal and the US Government cannot afford to let people (I'm talking about people with foreign passports) in this country without knowing where they were born.

Especially those carrying a EU passport that does not need a visa to enter the US for 90 days and therefore did not go through a screening before and they just show up at the airport.

About the reciprocal thing...says who that it has to be reciprocal? Is there an act that states that? If there is, what you say makes sense. Still my next question is: why is Canada exempt from it? if there isn't one, the whole thing about "other" countries and what they do doesn't count because we are only talking about USC traveling overseas and NOT tourists traveling to US. That is other country's governments concern how their citizens travel to US.

That's on security.

If we are talking about other countries making harsh comments at their POE, the US Government can NOT do anything about it. And even if they omitted the country of birth, most immigration officers in most countries will ask you where you were born. You would have to lie then.

What security? Security for what? Against what? What does COB have to do with security? Just because you hear this over and over doesn't mean it's true and you as a human being should question everything until it makes sense. So far the COB for security purposes doesn't make ANY sense to me. Why the place of my mother giving birth to me matters so much?

I wouldn't lie at all. If they ask then we ask them "why do they care to know?" If there's a law, I want them to quote me that law. If there isn't one, then they either allow me in as a USC or not. And if they don't I turn around 180 degrees and leave that place and they can loose the money I would have spent in their country, helping their economy as an American tourist. The choice is theirs. I can easily have my family members meet me in some other country if my birth country(or other) gives me a hassle. My money are just as good for one country's economy as they are good for any other.

And, if you want that just because you don't want to carry another passport according to the other countries' laws, then it's just plain wrong. What would you think if I insisted to enter the US on my Italian passport as a tourist when I am a US citizen also and I am required to use a US passport (This is EXACTLY the same problem seen from the other side)?

You shouldn't be a thing to own the moment you step on a land, period. A person should be look at as a citizen IF they start working there or living or paying taxes etc. Traveling for tourist purposes for a limited amount of time should not matter what passport you use as long as it is a legal document to identify you and is valid.

Edited March 11, 2010 by ziia

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

About the reciprocal thing...says who that it has to be reciprocal? Is there an act that states that? If there is, what you say makes sense. Still my next question is: why is Canada exempt from it? if there isn't one, the whole thing about "other" countries and what they do doesn't count because we are only talking about USC traveling overseas and NOT tourists traveling to US. That is other country's governments concern how their citizens travel to US.

What security? Security for what? Against what? What does COB have to do with security? Just because you hear this over and over doesn't mean it's true and you as a human being should question everything until it makes sense. So far the COB for security purposes doesn't make ANY sense to me. Why the place of my mother giving birth to me matters so much?

I wouldn't lie at all. If they ask then we ask them "why do they care to know?" If there's a law, I want them to quote me that law. If there isn't one, then they either allow me in as a USC or not. And if they don't I turn around 180 degrees and leave that place and they can loose the money I would have spent in their country, helping their economy as an American tourist. The choice is theirs. I can easily have my family members meet me in some other country if my birth country(or other) gives me a hassle. My money are just as good for one country's economy as they are good for any other.

You shouldn't be a thing to own the moment you step on a land, period. A person should be look at as a citizen IF they start working there or living or paying taxes etc. Traveling for tourist purposes for a limited amount of time should not matter what passport you use as long as it is a legal document to identify you and is valid.

Many actions in regards to international measure, especially international travel, are reciprocal.

I give you a few examples that I experienced:

When the US took off Brazil from the VWP list (countries whose citizens do not need a vosa to enter the US as tourist), Brazil immediately required all US citizens to obtain a visa to enter Brazil.

The visa fee for Russia changes from country to country. US citizens have to pay a higher fee because it mirrors exactly the fee that US Consulates charge to Russian citizens when applying for a US visa. That's why I always get my russian visas on my Italian passport, it costs less than half and they require much less information and paperwork.

Now, if the US starts permitting its citizens to travel with a passport with no place of birth on it, then most countries would adopt either of the following options:

- They will not accept the passport as valid (or you have to carry proof of place of birth along with your passport)

- They will ask that their citizens are permitted to do the same when entering the US

Also, in most countries, including the US, the immigration officer has the right to ask you whatever question he/she desires. And he/she has the right to deny you entry, for any reason or for no reason at all, including the US. So I would be careful before firing back at the officer aclu-style. You might be denied entry (in foreign countries, of course).

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

You shouldn't be a thing to own the moment you step on a land, period. A person should be look at as a citizen IF they start working there or living or paying taxes etc. Traveling for tourist purposes for a limited amount of time should not matter what passport you use as long as it is a legal document to identify you and is valid.

Let's be pragmatic.

You are a citizen if you hold citizenship, whether you live or work in that country. And most countries require you to use their passport to enter/exit their borders, regardless of how many other passports you hold.

And the US is by far the strictest country applying this policy, since not only requires its citizens to use a US passport to enter/exit the US, but also taxes its citizens worldwide, even if they don't have any ties to the US, aside from citizenship.