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

[antda 13]

More Replies...

I am so glad you guys brought this up. I was surprised when I received my US Passport to see the country of birth mentioned there. I asked myself what's the point of that? since in my mind at least i am born American now. Sure my mom gave birth to me in Romania, but why state that on the American Passport? I don' get it. For example they can replace the country of birth part with an "Exception: Can not become POTUS". I have not yet used my US passport to travel overseas and see if I have any difficulties because of my "country of birth" still, when I opened it, my first thought was "wow, that's a bit of discrimination, right there". I mean if I am an American, by guns, let me be one all the way right?

When i took the Oath of Allegiance the judge told us that this is our country now and we can consider that we've been "born again". Well, that's how I felt too...until i saw my brand new US Passport lol. I will write ACLU as well as I think this is really something they should consider looking into.

I am proud of where I was born and where I grew up and also proud to be an American but I don't see the point in having my "place of birth" on my Pass. I mean Why? Put the POTUS exception That should be more than enough and certainly more just.

I meant exemption not exception.

Ziia-I'm glad I brought this up too...Lol..Was really just asking for curiousity's sake and to sort-of solve my own birth country dilemma...Never knew this thread would be so popular around here. I was even more surprised to find that I'm not the only one that has a problem with this issue..Nice to know of other VJers that understand too....

I agree, what is the point of having a former birth country on a passport and/or other documents, after one becomes an American Citizen? I don't get it either. Seems like discrimination to me, other than anything else. Ameican all the way, and not anything else! And yes, I agree too, when we took the oath of allegiance, it is like we are "born again" and have just as many rights as a natural-born American, like we were born here in America (lol..hence the word "naturalization"). I'm proud to be American....I don't want anything else in my passport!

By the way, what do you mean when you say "POTUS"? Can you explain that further?

And by all means, yes, so write to the ACLU, and if you do, do let us know how that is. And good luck in getting your issue resolved through them too.

I think we have many valid ideas here, on how to face the issue. We can write to ACLU. Get our states senators/representatives involved. Write to the immigration congress committee. http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommi...immigration.cfm

Personally, I would write to John Cornyn, Texas (Ranking Member), telling him that any immigration reform has to include this place of birth issue.

MoroccanInTexas-Yes, we all have valid ideas here. And thanks too, for suggesting your ideas.

ACLU and Senators and Representatives are the way to go here!

Good idea about the Immigration Congress Committee.... (will look into that too)...Thanks for the suggestion....

And if you do contact all these people/agencies/committees, do let us know how that is. And good luck in getting your issue resolved through them too.

Ant

[ziia 9]

More Replies...

Ziia-I'm glad I brought this up too...Lol..Was really just asking for curiousity's sake and to sort-of solve my own birth country dilemma...Never knew this thread would be so popular around here. I was even more surprised to find that I'm not the only one that has a problem with this issue..Nice to know of other VJers that understand too....

I agree, what is the point of having a former birth country on a passport and/or other documents, after one becomes an American Citizen? I don't get it either. Seems like discrimination to me, other than anything else. Ameican all the way, and not anything else! And yes, I agree too, when we took the oath of allegiance, it is like we are "born again" and have just as many rights as a natural-born American, like we were born here in America (lol..hence the word "naturalization"). I'm proud to be American....I don't want anything else in my passport!

By the way, what do you mean when you say "POTUS"? Can you explain that further?

And by all means, yes, so write to the ACLU, and if you do, do let us know how that is. And good luck in getting your issue resolved through them too.

Ant

I agree with you 100% and just like you, I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees a bit of discrimination in stating the country of birth in the US Passport. I did sent a letter to ACLU, I'll let you know as soon as I get a response from them. I wish there was some sort of petition we can sign and send to them because the more signatures the more this issue will weigh in, I'm guessing. I don't want the place of birth in my US Passport. I already have it on my Birth Certificate and that is the right and only place where it should stay, not follow me around. I remember also when I took my Oath that I said this:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; ". The US Government through its Passport issuance of Country of Birth is in contradiction to the Oath of citizenship that the same government asks us to take....kind of ironic if you ask me. I'm sure a good lawyer could be successful making a case out of this. It's not rocket since to see the contradiction of these facts.

POTUS is a shortcut for "President Of The United States". So they can put that on the passport and replace the country of birth with : "Can not become POTUS" and there: problem solved. It's fair to the US and also it avoids the feeling of discrimination or feeling like you're "almost a citizen but not quite as best as the rest"(my personal quote here:)), you know what mean?

Edited February 26, 2010 by ziia

[commonsense 0]

This *really* is a common sense question. Of course you cannot somehow conceal your country of birth, it doesn't matter how many other nationalities you acquired in between. No need to be ashamed of where you come from.

Just Bob-

Lol..about the President...That was a "common-sense" situation.....Honolulu, Hawaii is in the USA....

An American that has an Americn place of birth...Travelling with an American passport.....Easy enough!

That makes sense....For any border official in any country to verify when travelling......

Man, now I wish I was born in Haiwaii instead......I could be president and live a more common-sense life!...(lol...just kidding...)

Mine is not a common sense situation.....

I was not born in the USA

I was born in another Birth Country, I have Canadian Citizenship through Naturalization, and I have American Citizenship through Naturalization....

And then I used to travel with a Candian passport, American green/permanent resident card, and have my former birth country listed on documents....

To a border official....that is not common sense.....

"Why the heck are you associated with 3 different countries?".....

Lol..Really..I want to make travel for as easy as possible....

Two countries is enough for me! (USA and Canada). No need to be assoicated with a third one...lol....

And if I can do that my eliminating "unnecessary" birth country information...Then so be it!

Can I make my life into common sense.....?????? .....Wishful thinking...

And what's so common-sense about listing a former non-US birth country, on a US passport?

Doesn't that contradict the fact American passport holders are American, and not anything else?

Lol...Hmm....maybe they should replace "place of birth" with "place of naturalization" for those who have citizenship through naturalization..

"Yes, I was born through naturalization as a US Citzen in Buffalo, NY!"....lol....

So "Buffalo, NY" is my new birthplace....lol......(just kidding....but interesting idea.... )

Ant

[NickD 202]

This *really* is a common sense question. Of course you cannot somehow conceal your country of birth, it doesn't matter how many other nationalities you acquired in between. No need to be ashamed of where you come from.

Not a question of being ashamed of where you were born, a question of having to maintain your place of birth foreign passport to visit your home country if your former country requires that. And the dead giveaway is having your place of birth written in your US passport. I as a natural born USC have no problem in visiting my wife's countries, but my USC wife does. So in this respect, she is not a USC just like she was born here. Been several weeks since I contacted my senator, congressman, and the ACLU, not a single response to date.

[sachinky 465]

Well, there IS a difference between natural-born and a naturalized citizen. I'd think this is quite obvious.

[NickD 202]

Well, there IS a difference between natural-born and a naturalized citizen. I'd think this is quite obvious.

One difference is that a naturalized citizen cannot run for presidency, but can run for any other office. Another difference, a natural born citizen doesn't have to know anything about their government, a naturalized citizen does.

An immigrant has to undergo a complete medical examination while a natural born citizen is free to be a communicable disease carrier.

If you bring a baby here, have to have a bunch of bucks to support it, if you are an illegal person here having a baby, that baby can get free Medicaid. Yes, there are difference, but do they make any sense?

[sachinky 465]

No, I agree with you in that it doesn't make sense but those are just some privileges that certain individuals enjoy as a result of their of birth. Others don't, simply because there were not born at that certain place. Their rights come having being born at that place, whereas others have to 'earn' it. I enjoy plenty of rights and privileges in India, however, I certainly don't expect the same "treatment" in USA, even if I were ever to become a USC. It's just the way it is, I don't see anything fair or unfair in it.

It is an interesting discussion that has its base in political philosphy.

[mikey78 6]

No, I agree with you in that it doesn't make sense but those are just some privileges that certain individuals enjoy as a result of their of birth. Others don't, simply because there were not born at that certain place. Their rights come having being born at that place, whereas others have to 'earn' it. I enjoy plenty of rights and privileges in India, however, I certainly don't expect the same "treatment" in USA, even if I were ever to become a USC. It's just the way it is, I don't see anything fair or unfair in it.

It is an interesting discussion that has its base in political philosphy.

Well...in the US though citizens in principle should be equal, and if any structure perpetuates discrimination without a well founded legally sanctioned reason it can usually be contested. The idea behind naturalization is that you are becoming a US citizen with all the priviledges and responsibilities of an American-born citizen and with a few exceptions (e.g. running for a president) it is strongly enforced. Most people who went through naturalization would see it as unfair if they would be treated differently based on their foreign place of birth. We all know discrimination takes place but we don't have to put up with it. I am really happy this thread exists because I had no idea that there are adverse consequences of having one's place of birth in the US passport...it's definitely not obvious to Canadians and citizens of the EU since usually the governments either acknowledge dual citizenships or simply do not care. But who knows what the future holds, laws and attitudes change so can this situation.

[sachinky 465]

Well, they ARE equal under law. There is no discrimination, technically. All natural born citizens ALSO have their place of birth listed in the passport, it's not just the naturalized USCs that have it in order to mark them out as foreigners. And if they were all so "equal" they why are naturalized citizens barred from running for POTUS? I'll tell you why: it's because they're deemed to be "not as American" as natural born citizens and not possessing the same patriotic fervour that comes from being born on the soil of a certain country.

Edited February 26, 2010 by sachinky

[sachinky 465]

"The UN has repeatedly stated that everyone has a right to a nationality; i.e., nobody should be "stateless". However, they have never implied in any way that anyone has a right to choose their nationality. The nationality which you have a right to is established at birth, either by parentage or by location of birth. If you want to change your de-facto nationality, then you are asking another nation for a PRIVILEGE. When you realize that what you are asking for is a favor from the government of a nation, and not a right of any kind, then most of your arguments about fairness and equality evaporate."

I thought this quote by Jim in another thread summed up my feelings rather eloquently.

[ziia 9]

This *really* is a common sense question. Of course you cannot somehow conceal your country of birth, it doesn't matter how many other nationalities you acquired in between. No need to be ashamed of where you come from.

I don't think you understand. It has noting to do with being ashamed but a complete different perspective, more of a social perspective than anything else. The issue I and others have raised is different and I don't expect everybody to get it because it deals with the feeling of discrimination...and those kind of feelings are not always understood or perceived the same way by every person. It is not a matter of black and white for me, I have yet to travel with my US Passport to see if I'll have any issues in my birth country. But let me tell you, I KNOW ahead that I will encounter some "not so nice" looks or treatments at the POE in Romania. They do NOT like it when you gain the citizenship of another country and most people there are extremely judgmental, unless you know them or they are your family. People with a job in Romania, if they actually DO their job, act as if they do you a favor. They won't necessarily ask you for money but they DO expect you give them a bribe for treating you nicely or fairly. THAT is my issue, not that i was born there. My whole family is there and i return with great pleasure each time. On top of that, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to say: I have 100% Romanian blood pulsing through my veins but an American heart.

I'm sorry, I don't see any difference between me and a born here citizen except for the fact that I can't ever become President of US and that is fine. The rest is just a matter of sensitivity certain issues regarding discrimination. I hope you get my point and if not, that's fine too. I do think it should be an option when you apply for a US Passport, wether you want your country of birth mentioned in there or not. Leave it up to the people, that's the American way, no?

Edited February 26, 2010 by ziia

[mikey78 6]

Guys, not sure if you have seen this but take a look at this report I found after I googled the issue:

archive.gao.gov/d29t5/133797.pdf

It seems like the biggest concern some parts of the govmnt have is that if US decided to remove birthplace info from passports other countries could follow and then it would make it more difficult for the US border inspection to process and verify people coming to the US...in between the lines they are saying that it would be more difficult for them to profile people if they naturalized in another country (e.g. Canada, France, UK) being originally from a country declared as a sponsor of terrorism. But of course there are other issues raised there.

One important thing is that there is an international convention that dictates what information should be included in the biographic page of the passport and countries that ratified the convention have to adhere to the rules outlined there. So it is not totally at the discretion of the administration. The report is dated 1987...so it's been a while...

[NickD 202]

Guys, not sure if you have seen this but take a look at this report I found after I googled the issue:

archive.gao.gov/d29t5/133797.pdf

It seems like the biggest concern some parts of the govmnt have is that if US decided to remove birthplace info from passports other countries could follow and then it would make it more difficult for the US border inspection to process and verify people coming to the US...in between the lines they are saying that it would be more difficult for them to profile people if they naturalized in another country (e.g. Canada, France, UK) being originally from a country declared as a sponsor of terrorism. But of course there are other issues raised there.

One important thing is that there is an international convention that dictates what information should be included in the biographic page of the passport and countries that ratified the convention have to adhere to the rules outlined there. So it is not totally at the discretion of the administration. The report is dated 1987...so it's been a while...

Here's the entire link for that *.pfd file:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2ht...&images=yes

If you looked at page 14, from polling 25 different countries, ironically, the USA is not one of them, 18 out of those 25 countries said yes to not showing the place of birth on passports. Out of the seven that said no, just three meant no, the other four said on an individual basis. To me an individual basis is the same as saying yes, no objection to be questioned as to whether my wife is a suspected terrorist, so that makes 22 out of 25 countries leaving the place of birth out of the passport.

This study was formed by the same administration that change immigration policy negatively, let health insurance companies add the pre-condition exemption, killed the anti-trust act forcing many small businesses out of business, and ran up a huge national debt and was one the major administrations to affect the freedom of US citizens.

Thank you for posting this, something else to forward to my congressman. If they suspect that a person is a terrorist, can stamp in big red fat letters,

SUSPECTED TERRORIST

and leave the rest of us alone.

[antda 13]

More Replies...

I agree with you 100% and just like you, I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees a bit of discrimination in stating the country of birth in the US Passport. I did sent a letter to ACLU, I'll let you know as soon as I get a response from them. I wish there was some sort of petition we can sign and send to them because the more signatures the more this issue will weigh in, I'm guessing. I don't want the place of birth in my US Passport. I already have it on my Birth Certificate and that is the right and only place where it should stay, not follow me around. I remember also when I took my Oath that I said this:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; ". The US Government through its Passport issuance of Country of Birth is in contradiction to the Oath of citizenship that the same government asks us to take....kind of ironic if you ask me. I'm sure a good lawyer could be successful making a case out of this. It's not rocket since to see the contradiction of these facts.

POTUS is a shortcut for "President Of The United States". So they can put that on the passport and replace the country of birth with : "Can not become POTUS" and there: problem solved. It's fair to the US and also it avoids the feeling of discrimination or feeling like you're "almost a citizen but not quite as best as the rest"(my personal quote here:)), you know what mean?

Ziia-I agree with you 100% on this issue too. And yes, it is discriminatory to put one's previous country of birth on a US passport, especially after they have naturalized and are "born again" in America. That's great that you wrote a letter to the ACLU regarding your views in this matter, and good luck in hearing a response back from them. I agree too, that the birth place should only be on the birth certificate and nothing else. It shouldn't follow anyone else around in any other documents either (lol..it followed me around on my marriage certificate too...but that's another story...couldn't get it ammended...sigh...). And yes, I remember when I tok the oath, I said the same thing you did (and I even said it one-on-one in front of an immigration officer and other witnesses in a private ceremony..so they knew for sure I was saying those words)...Definitely a contradiction to be loyal to the USA in an oath, and yet not treated the same way on a US passport. Lol about POTUS (and thanks for explaining more about that too). Too bad we all can't become presidents of the USA...Sigh..in the meantime..we have to settle for being naturalized US citizens...But one thing is for sure: we are defiintely US citizens, not any less than that!

This *really* is a common sense question. Of course you cannot somehow conceal your country of birth, it doesn't matter how many other nationalities you acquired in between. No need to be ashamed of where you come from.

Commonsense-Lol..Funny, how you sound like some of the ignorant government workers that I've encountered before....lol..Yes, I am aware of the fact that I cannot change one's place of birth. Sure this is the place that I came out to the world from. But I also come from another place, which should be taken into account too. Since I've naturalized in America, it's like I'm "born again and come from America". It's like I was born here, like I had no other country to be loyal to (lol...and I took an oath that said this too), and have the same rights (except for being president..lol..) as any natural-born American. Others who have gone through the naturalization process I'm sure feel the same way too. So ask me where I come from again, and I will tell you..."Buffalo, NY"...as that is where I became "Ameican"...And I don't care if they put Buffalo, NY on my US passport....As that is where I am from....

Not a question of being ashamed of where you were born, a question of having to maintain your place of birth foreign passport to visit your home country if your former country requires that. And the dead giveaway is having your place of birth written in your US passport. I as a natural born USC have no problem in visiting my wife's countries, but my USC wife does. So in this respect, she is not a USC just like she was born here. Been several weeks since I contacted my senator, congressman, and the ACLU, not a single response to date.

NickD-I agree, it is also having ties to former country that causes problems when travelling too. And in your wife's case, is like she was never a USC at all, which she isn't..And that's not fair that she has to be treated like this! Why maintain a former passport when she doesn't have to as a USC? Hope too, that you hear from your congressman, senator, ACLU, etc. about this too. Great to hear that you wrote to all these agencies, making them more aware of the issue too!

Well, there IS a difference between natural-born and a naturalized citizen. I'd think this is quite obvious.

Sachinky-On a legal level, there is no difference (other than a naturalized citizen cannot run for president). A naturalized USC has just the same and equal right and responsibilies as any natural-born USC.

One difference is that a naturalized citizen cannot run for presidency, but can run for any other office. Another difference, a natural born citizen doesn't have to know anything about their government, a naturalized citizen does.

An immigrant has to undergo a complete medical examination while a natural born citizen is free to be a communicable disease carrier.

If you bring a baby here, have to have a bunch of bucks to support it, if you are an illegal person here having a baby, that baby can get free Medicaid. Yes, there are difference, but do they make any sense?

NickD-Lol...about the communicable diseases. Oh, and not ot mention the fact that natural-born USCs don't have to go through the USCIS either. And yes, natural-born USCs can be ignorant about their own country and take it for granted (which is a shame, really) and not have to go through an oath. Which is why, I personally think that naturalized USCs are even more deserving to be in this country, especially since they worked so hard for such. You know it's funny, someone actually said to me after I explained my US immigration story, "You are more American than the Americans here (lol...they were a natural born USC)..". That is so true....

No, I agree with you in that it doesn't make sense but those are just some privileges that certain individuals enjoy as a result of their of birth. Others don't, simply because there were not born at that certain place. Their rights come having being born at that place, whereas others have to 'earn' it. I enjoy plenty of rights and privileges in India, however, I certainly don't expect the same "treatment" in USA, even if I were ever to become a USC. It's just the way it is, I don't see anything fair or unfair in it.

It is an interesting discussion that has its base in political philosphy.

Sachinky-Yes, as naturalized USCs...we earned those rights through naturalization to be a US citizens. And I certain don't expect to be treated less than any natural-born USC. So hence, I feel it is unfair to be discriminated against, on a US passport, just because of some government's discriminatory agenda...Interesting political discussion, indeed!

Ant

Edited March 1, 2010 by Ant+D+BabyA

[antda 13]

More Replies...

Well...in the US though citizens in principle should be equal, and if any structure perpetuates discrimination without a well founded legally sanctioned reason it can usually be contested. The idea behind naturalization is that you are becoming a US citizen with all the priviledges and responsibilities of an American-born citizen and with a few exceptions (e.g. running for a president) it is strongly enforced. Most people who went through naturalization would see it as unfair if they would be treated differently based on their foreign place of birth. We all know discrimination takes place but we don't have to put up with it. I am really happy this thread exists because I had no idea that there are adverse consequences of having one's place of birth in the US passport...it's definitely not obvious to Canadians and citizens of the EU since usually the governments either acknowledge dual citizenships or simply do not care. But who knows what the future holds, laws and attitudes change so can this situation.

Mikey78-Yes, under this principle all US citizens should be equal, regardless of how they acquired such citizenship (birth, naturalization, etc.). Other than running for the president, eveyrthing else should pretty much be the same (lol..though I think naturalized citizens should be able to run for president too..but that's another argument..). I definitely see it unfair to be treated differently because of a foreign place of birth, and in my experience, I have been treated unfairly because of it (lol..I'm not referring to Canada..as I was naturalized there..I'm talking about my other country of birth). Discrimination does exist, regardless, and nobody should have to put up with it. There are adverse consequences, and I'm glad that you reading this thread see this too. I agree, Canadians do acknowledge dual citizenship, and I'm proud to say that I'm Canadian. Actually, I would have no problems if they put "Canada" on my US Passport. Unforunately, I was not born in Canada, so I am stuck with another place of birth, which others see that side, and judge negatively because of that. They don't see the Canadian and/or the American, and see something else instead, which is not fair. Who knows what the future holds...But I hope that the future does hold a positive change in laws and attitudes in this situation too.

Well, they ARE equal under law. There is no discrimination, technically. All natural born citizens ALSO have their place of birth listed in the passport, it's not just the naturalized USCs that have it in order to mark them out as foreigners. And if they were all so "equal" they why are naturalized citizens barred from running for POTUS? I'll tell you why: it's because they're deemed to be "not as American" as natural born citizens and not possessing the same patriotic fervour that comes from being born on the soil of a certain country.

Sachinky-Yes, by law we are equal. But nevertheless, discrimination does exist, which is unfortulate. True, that we all have a place of birth listed on a passport. But there is a difference between having a foreign place of birth, versus an American one. And that is where the "equality" become "discrimination", just by this simple fact of having a different birthplace. We do not choose where we are born (our parents choose that actually), but we choose where we are naturalized. So why can't naturalized citizens run for president too, especially since they choose to be a citizen of that country? And why do naturalized citizens have to put up with a former country of birth being listed? Lol..Unfair, indeed!

"The UN has repeatedly stated that everyone has a right to a nationality; i.e., nobody should be "stateless". However, they have never implied in any way that anyone has a right to choose their nationality. The nationality which you have a right to is established at birth, either by parentage or by location of birth. If you want to change your de-facto nationality, then you are asking another nation for a PRIVILEGE. When you realize that what you are asking for is a favor from the government of a nation, and not a right of any kind, then most of your arguments about fairness and equality evaporate."I thought this quote by Jim in another thread summed up my feelings rather eloquently.

Sachinky-Well..why can't we be "stateless", as apposed to having a birth coutnry listed on a passport? Again, we do not choose where we are born, but we can choose where we are naturalized. So should I leave my nationality up to my parents? Heck no! I choose to be in the USA, as an adult..I am not asking for a favour....I am choosing what I believe is a right, as an adult! I am not choosing what I believe was a right as a minor! One can make decisions as an adult, but not as a minor.....I'm just claiming what is my RIGHT as an adult, that's all....

I don't think you understand. It has noting to do with being ashamed but a complete different perspective, more of a social perspective than anything else. The issue I and others have raised is different and I don't expect everybody to get it because it deals with the feeling of discrimination...and those kind of feelings are not always understood or perceived the same way by every person. It is not a matter of black and white for me, I have yet to travel with my US Passport to see if I'll have any issues in my birth country. But let me tell you, I KNOW ahead that I will encounter some "not so nice" looks or treatments at the POE in Romania. They do NOT like it when you gain the citizenship of another country and most people there are extremely judgmental, unless you know them or they are your family. People with a job in Romania, if they actually DO their job, act as if they do you a favor. They won't necessarily ask you for money but they DO expect you give them a bribe for treating you nicely or fairly. THAT is my issue, not that i was born there. My whole family is there and i return with great pleasure each time. On top of that, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to say: I have 100% Romanian blood pulsing through my veins but an American heart.

I'm sorry, I don't see any difference between me and a born here citizen except for the fact that I can't ever become President of US and that is fine. The rest is just a matter of sensitivity certain issues regarding discrimination. I hope you get my point and if not, that's fine too. I do think it should be an option when you apply for a US Passport, wether you want your country of birth mentioned in there or not. Leave it up to the people, that's the American way, no?

Ziia-There are many issues to this....But it all boils down to one word, like you said.."Discrimination". I agree, it is a matter of being able to freely travel as a US Citizen without any problems, and not to be discriminated any other way because of a former birth country. Sorry that you got bad treatment in Romania, and I hope they don't treat you this way when you travel. Nobody deserves to be treated like this when they travel! If one is a US Citizen..So be it.....That should be it, and nothing else on a US Passport....That is the American way, the non-discriminatory way! One chooses to be an American citizen, then why should they be anything else on a US issued document? I think that such an option is a good idea...To have a birth country mentioned or not...Lol..That's how the Canadians do it (leaving a "blank" for a birthplace if one chooses, like I did)..And I have no problems with such (and hence, because of this..I choose to keep my Canadian passport..instead of apply for an American one..lol..at least they don't discriminate on the passport there!).

Ant