From: bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan)
Subject: Re: Dual citizenship, US-Israel. (was Re: Kahane's philosophy)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:44:46 GMT
Reply-To: bh437292@lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Engineering College, Colorado State University

In article <23065@venera.isi.edu>, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
|> In article <Dec15.195516.63385@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan) writes:
|> >
|> > Basically, Americans are allowed to become dual citizens of other
|> > countries (that do not require them to give up American citizenship)
|> > if they are non naturalized citizens, or naturalized as children.
|> > If they are naturalized citizens as adults, then they are asked
|> > to forego all previous nationalities in order to aquire the US
|> > nationality. . . 
|> 
|> Sorry, but this is not correct.  My wife and several close friends are
|> US citizen who were naturalized as adults, so I have had quite extensive
|> experience in this matter.  In addition, I am a US citizen who became
|> an Israeli citizen, so I have firsthand knowledge of what that involves
|> as well.

Well, I am a naturalized US citizen myself, how is that for first hand knowledge ?

|> An adult who undergoes naturalization in the US is required to formally
|> renounce allegiance to all foreign countries.  However, that is *not*
|> interpreted as requiring the actual renunciation of foreign
|> *citizenship*.  No prior demand is made that foreign citizenship be
|> renounced, nor is there any followup to see what the naturalized
|> person's citizenship status is later.  My wife and friends are
|> naturalized US citizens and still hold foreign citizenships.

Just because the US takes us at our oath does not mean that it allows us
to renegue (sp ??) on our sworn word.  When I was sworn in the Federal 
District  Court, I pledged to "renounce allegiance to any foreign
prince or potentate", my interpretation of this oath  means that
I no longer can legally claim that I am a Lebanese citizen.  I may
keep the passport and use it, since it was not required of me to formally
give it up, but using may be ethically wrong.  I think the key factor
in this whole issue is a question of _intent_.  That is what the Supreme
Court ruled in the cases of Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253) and
Vance v. Terrazas (444 U.S. 252).
Here is the gest of these decisions (excerpted): 

    The Supreme Court decisions are Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253) and
    Vance v. Terrazas (444 U.S. 252).

    Afroyim was a Polish immigrant to the US, who moved to Israel and
    became an Israeli citizen under the Israeli "Law of Return".  When
    the US State Department refused to renew his passport, he sued; the
    case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and Afroyim won.

    Terrazas was a dual US/Mexican citizen by birth.  When he became an
    adult, he signed a document reaffirming his Mexican citizenship (as
    required by Mexican law).  This document contained a clause renounc-
    ing his US citizenship.  When the State Department ruled he was no
    longer a US citizen, Terrazas tried to argue in the courts that he
    didn't really mean to renounce his US citizenship, despite what was
    on the Mexican document he had signed.  The Supreme Court disagreed
    and held Terrazas to the strict wording of the Mexican document,
    which it concluded he (being fluent in Spanish) had understood per-
    fectly well at the time he had signed it.

    The basic point of Afroyim v. Rusk was that the 14th Amendment to
    the US Constitution -- while originally intended mainly to guarantee
    citizenship to freed Negro slaves and their descendants -- had
    effectively elevated citizenship to the status of a constitutionally
    protected right.  Hence, Congress had no right to pass a law saying
    that doing such-and-so would deprive someone of his US citizenship
    against his will.  Specifically, US laws demanding automatic loss of
    citizenship for voting in a foreign election, working for a foreign
    government, serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance
    to a foreign country were invalid; said laws =must= provide for the
    possibility that someone could do one of these things and neverthe-
    less intend to retain his US citizenship.

    The basic point of Vance v. Terrazas was that the State Department
    had the right to weigh the evidence for and against someone's intent
    to give up his US citizenship, and to use a "preponderance of evi-
    dence" standard (as in a lawsuit), as opposed to a "proof beyond a
    reasonable doubt" standard (as in a criminal case).

    "Rusk" and "Vance" in these two cases were Dean Rusk and Cyrus
    Vance, who served as Secretary of State under Johnson and Carter,
    respectively.  The way these cases got before the Supreme Court in
    the first place was that people appealed loss-of-citizenship rulings
    by the State Department -- thus, the government official named in
    each suit was the Secretary of State.  The order of the names has to
    do with which person lost in the lower court and appealed to the
    Supreme Court, and really isn't important as far as the legal sig-
    nificance of the ruling.

    Loss of citizenship is dealt with in section 349(a) of the Immigra-
    tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. sec. 1481(a)).  The amendment
    which wrote the Afroyim and Terrazas decisions into the statute
    books was Pub.L. 99-653, 100 Stat. 3655, enacted 14 November 1986.


|> > Here is an excerpt(I can e-mail the complete and long document
|> > to anyone concerned or interested):
|> >
|> > Q:  Does the US have a special agreement with Israel permitting people
|> >     to be dual US/Israeli citizens?
|> >
|> > A:  No.  It just happens that Israeli citizenship law does not require
|> >     renunciation of one's old citizenship in order to become a citizen
|> >     of Israel.  In this regard, Israel is treated no differently from
|> >     Canada, the UK, France, or other countries which permit people to
|> >     become citizens without giving up their old status.
|> 
|> Indeed the US does not have any special agreement in this regard with
|> Israel.  But there is still a difference between what happens when one
|> acquires Israeli citizenship as opposed to the citizenship of any other
|> country I'm familiar with.  It used to make a significant difference.
|> 
|> When one acquires Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return (and it is
|> extremely rare for anyone to get it otherwise, despite what some here
|> have claimed), the person in question never makes an explicit request
|> for Israeli citizenship.  The immigrant simply states upon entry that
|> s/he is "returning", whereupon they are given a form informing them that
|> unless they object within a specified time (3 weeks, I believe), they
|> will *automatically* be granted Israeli citizenship.
|> 
|> There was a time, certainly until the 1950s, perhaps later, when the US
|> government considered the voluntary naturalization of the US citizen in
|> a foreign country as grounds for revoking US citizenship.  The Israeli
|> arrangement made it possible for people to claim that Israeli
|> citizenship was foisted upon them without any action on their part.
|> This argument was accepted by the US.
|> 
|> Today, the interpretation of US law is different.  It is virtually
|> impossible to lose US citizenship without explicitly requesting so from
|> the US government.  Even then it is not clear that such a request is
|> irrevocable.  So the Israeli arrangment is irrelevant.

Agreed, the US position on dual ctizenship has considerably evolved
over the years according to Supreme Court rulings and their
interpretation by the State Department, and now it is much more liberal
in this regard.

|> >     I've been told that the US State Department has granted additional
|> >     autonomy to its consular officials in Israel to deal with dual-
|> >     citizenship claims without having to forward them all to Washington.
|> >     This was reportedly done because there are so many such cases in
|> >     Israel, however, and is not the result of any special treaty or
|> >     other agreement with that country.
|> 
|> I don't know how the State Department handles the issue of mere dual
|> citizenship.  I do know that at least until the mid 1970s (and possibly
|> to this day, although I doubt it) the US considered voluntary service in
|> a foreign army as grounds for revoking citizenship, and the case of
|> every US citizen who served in the Israeli army had to be cleared with
|> the State Department.  All one had to do, though, was provide a
|> statement to the effect that the service was not voluntary (as Israel
|> has a draft), and one's US citizenship was not in jeopardy.  Until 1974
|> every such case had to be formally decided by the State Department in
|> Washington.  In 1974 authority to make such routine rulings was given to
|> the American diplomatic missions in Israel and East Jerusalem.
|> 
|> >     Note that serving in a foreign army does =not= automatically cause
|> >     you to lose US citizenship.  As explained below, if you do this with
|> >     the =intent= of thereby giving up your US citizenship, then yes, you
|> >     can end up losing your US citizenship.  So, again, the fact that
|> >     most dual US/Israeli citizens can fulfill their obligation to serve
|> >     in the Israeli army (IDF) without losing their US status is not the
|> >     result of any special treaty between the US and Israel.
|> 
|> See above for some relevant information.
|> --
|> Yigal Arens
|> USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
|> arens@isi.edu