From: przemek@tokamak.viewlogic.com (Przemek Skoskiewicz)
Subject: Re: Podwojne obywatelstwo
Originator: przemek@tokamak
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:00:14 GMT


In article <tomek-210193134019@mac198.sfa.ufl.edu>, tomek@ufcc.ufl.edu (Tomasz Mazur) writes:
|>     Czy ktos cos wie na temat pozycji Polski i U.S.A. odnosnie podwojnego
|> (polsko-amerykanskiego) obywatelstwa dla Polakow?  Wydaje mi sie ze Rzad
|> Polski nie ma nic przeciwko temu ale nie wiem nic o pozycji U.S.A. w tej
|> sprawie.  Jakis czas temu probowalem sie czegos dowiedziec od Urzedu
|> Imigracyjnego w Jacksonville.  Ich odpowiedz: "Amerykanskie przepisy nic o
|> tym nie mowia."  Czy to mozliwe?
|> 

Juz nie pamietam w ktorej newsgroup ponizszy artykul by zamieszczony.  W kazdym
badz razie wyjasnia wiele domoroslych teorii na temat podwojnego obywatelstwa,
ktore kraza po amerykanskiej Polonii.  Szczegulnie iluminujace sa informacje na
temat tzw. umowy miedzy rzadami Izraela i Stanow Zjednoczonycz.  Takiej umowy po
prostu nie ma.  I na koniec, tak jak we wprowadzeniu Rich Wales rekomenduje, nie
polegaj na opini rodziny i znajomych, tylko na prawnikach, ktorzy sie na tym
znaja. 


							Przemek Skoskiewicz


Here is a bunch of information regarding the current situation in US law
regarding dual citizenship.  I have checked this question out quite
thoroughly in recent years, and I am fairly confident that this material
is accurate.  (Hopefully there aren't any typos!)

Standard disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.  If you are in a dual citizen-
ship situation, or are contemplating such a move, I strongly recommend
you discuss your plans with an attorney who is knowledgeable in this
aspect of immigration law.

Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683

========================================================================

Q:  Is it possible to be a dual citizen of the United States of America
    and another country?

A:  YES -- under certain circumstances.

    In a nutshell, you need to either have been a dual citizen from
    birth or childhood, or else become a citizen of another country
    =after= already having US citizenship; the other country cannot have
    any laws or regulations requiring you to renounce your US citizen-
    ship; and you need to exercise a certain amount of care and common
    sense in order not to lead the US State Department to conclude that
    you have voluntarily relinquished your US citizenship even though
    you may never have said so explicitly.

    It is =not=, in general, possible for someone to become a US citizen
    via naturalization and still take advantage of his old citizenship.

========================================================================

Q:  I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen -- that if
    you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give up the
    other citizenship or you'd lose your US status.  So what's all this
    talk about dual citizenship?

A:  It indeed =used= to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold
    dual citizenship (except if you had dual citizenship from birth or
    childhood, in which case you had to choose one country or the other
    when you became an adult).

    However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck
    down in 1967 by the US Supreme Court.  The court's decision in the
    1967 case, as well as a second case in 1980, eventually made its way
    explicitly into the statute books in 1986; up till that time, the
    old rules were still on the books, but the State Department was
    effectively under court order to ignore them.

    Rules against dual citizenship still apply, however, to people who
    wish to become US citizens via naturalization.

========================================================================

Q:  For us "legal eagles", where are these two Supreme Court decisions
    and the federal statutes on US citizenship?

A:  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.

========================================================================

Q:  Doesn't the US Constitution forbid dual citizenship?

A:  No.  The Constitution says nothing at all about dual citizenship.
    Indeed, the Supreme Court used an argument derived from the Consti-
    tution to affirm a right to dual citizenship in the Afroyim case
    (see the previous question).

========================================================================

Q:  If dual citizenship is legal now, then why do people who want to
    become naturalized US citizens still have to take an oath giving up
    their old citizenship?

A:  The Supreme Court ruled (in the Afroyim case) that the citizenship
    protection of the 14th Amendment did not apply to people who were
    not citizens.  Congress was still free, the Court decided, to estab-
    lish prerequisites for accepting such people as citizens -- includ-
    ing a requirement that a prospective citizen be willing to renounce
    his old citizenship.

    Incidentally, this asymmetry may explain why so many "immigration"
    lawyers in the US are seemingly unaware of the laws permitting dual
    US/other citizenship.  They spend all their time dealing with people
    who want to become US citizens or permanent residents -- and since
    the US requires a renunciation of prior citizenship as part of the
    naturalization procedure, these lawyers may incorrectly advise
    people who are already US citizens that they cannot become dual cit-
    izens.  Be very mindful of this when looking for a lawyer to discuss
    a dual citizenship situation with.

========================================================================

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.

    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.

    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.

========================================================================

Q:  If I become a US citizen and renounce my old citizenship as part of
    the naturalization ceremony, can I still run into problems (such as
    getting drafted or not being allowed to leave) if I go back to visit
    my old country?

A:  Possibly.  Many countries do not recognize the renunciation of old
    citizenship which is part of the US naturalization ceremony.  Can-
    ada, for example, require that someone who wants to give up his
    citizenship has to go to a Canadian embassy or consulate and sign a
    special form in the presence of Canadian officials.  Other countries
    often require an applicant for renunciation of citizenship to show
    he doesn't own any assets in the country, has fulfulled military
    service obligations, etc.  New Zealand, interestingly enough, has no
    provisions at all in its law for renunciation of citizenship; once a
    Kiwi, always a Kiwi.

    So, even after becoming a naturalized US citizen, one should still
    check carefully with diplomatic officials both of the US and of the
    "old country" before going back for a visit.  If you get arrested
    there for draft evasion, for voicing opinions about their government
    that are OK to say in the US but not OK back home (even if said
    opinions were expressed here and not there!), or for whatever other
    reason, you may very well find that the US can't help you, because
    the other country will insist you're one of their citizens and that
    the matter is therefore none of the US's %$@&# business.

    This same word of caution may also apply to people who were born in
    the US, but whose parents (or even grandparents) came from somewhere
    else.  Many countries have laws conferring citizenship on the basis
    of the citizenship of one's parents or grandparents (even the US has
    a limited law of this kind).  In general, before visiting =any=
    country which might possibly have some reason to claim you as its
    citizen (due to circumstances of your birth or naturalization, or
    that of any of your relatives), it's a good idea to check both with
    that country's consular officials and the US State Department.

    Also, if you become a naturalized US citizen and permanently move
    away from the US within one year after your naturalization, you risk
    losing your US citizenship.  This is because one of the requirements
    for naturalization is that you must agree to reside "permanently" in
    the US after becoming a citizen.  The one-year time limit used to be
    five years, but was changed by Congress in 1986 (as part of the same
    bill which amended the dual-citizenship rules to be in line with the
    Supreme Court rulings; see above).

========================================================================

Q:  I've heard of people who became US citizens via naturalization, but
    they claim they still have their old citizenship too.  How is this
    possible?

A:  There are a couple of scenarios.  One is that the person's old
    country may not recognize the renunciation of citizenship he made as
    part of US naturalization (see the previous question).  Such a per-
    son could be a dual citizen, as it were, in spite of himself.

    Or, the person might have become a US citizen as a child (natural-
    ized along with his parents) -- in which case he would never have
    had to take the oath and would not have had to renounce his old
    citizenship (even though his parents did).  A person in this kind of
    situation can exercise his dual status freely, provided the other
    country doesn't require him to renounce his US citizenship when he
    becomes an adult (see the next question).

    Finally, some people who become US citizens try to take illicit
    advantage of the fact that the US didn't make them actually go to
    their old country's consulate and get their citizenship revoked --
    and they try to exercise rights of citizenship in both countries as
    if nothing had happened.  This is =not= recommended.  It's generally
    illegal, unethical, and is likely to lead to loss of US citizenship
    if the State Department finds out about it.

    Some legal experts suggest it may be possible for a naturalized US
    citizen to either (1) reassert his prior citizenship or (2) acquire
    a third country's citizenship, once he has been a US citizen for the
    minimum one-year period during which a new citizen must live in the
    US.  The theory is that, after this one-year period, the new citizen
    has fulfilled the 14th Amendment requirement of being "subject to
    the jurisdiction" of the US -- and is thereafter free to become the
    citizen of an additional country on the same basis as a natural-born
    US citizen would be.  However, one would be advised to check his
    situation carefully with a knowledgeable attorney before trying to
    do something like this.

========================================================================

Q:  If I am a dual US/other citizen, is there any way I can lose my US
    citizenship?  What can I do to keep this from happening?

A:  Although current US law forbids the government from taking your cit-
    izenship from you against your will, it does permit you to give it
    up voluntarily.  This has placed the US State Department in the
    complex position of determining whether someone who claims to be a
    US citizen has, in fact, given up that citizenship by his voluntary
    statements or actions.

    Some cases are "cut and dried".  For example, if you become a citi-
    zen of some other country, and in the process of doing so you sign a
    statement or take an oath renouncing your US citizenship, you can
    kiss your US passport goodbye.  You can argue all you want that you
    didn't really mean what you signed or said, and neither the State
    Department nor the courts are likely to pay you any heed.  That's
    what happened in the Vance v. Terrazas case in the Supreme Court
    (see above).  Now, of course, if you can convince the State Depart-
    ment that you subscribed to said oath while the other country's
    military types had a gun at your head, you might have a chance.

    However, most cases are much fuzzier.  For example, US citizens are
    supposed to file tax returns even if they're living abroad and
    earned nothing at all from US sources.  If you are a dual citizen
    living outside the US, and you stopped filing US tax returns, does
    that mean you've decided to give up your US citizenship?  Suppose
    you have children abroad (who probably hold US citizenship because
    of their birth to you) and neglect to notify the nearest US consu-
    late?  Suppose you neglect to renew your US passport?  What if you
    go visit the US and flash a foreign passport at US Immigration?
    What if you run for elective office in another country (maybe a big-
    time position, or maybe just a city council or school board)?  In
    cases like these, the State Department is supposed to look at every
    piece of info it can get its hands on in order to figure out whether
    at any point you demonstrated an intent to give up your US ties and
    be =only= a citizen of some other country.

    The process is complicated by the fact that many State Department
    people are uneasy with the idea of dual citizenship anyway (see the
    next question).  After all, the only reason US law now permits dual
    citizenship is because the Supreme Court mandated it back in the
    60's.  Some of our diplomats are no doubt biased against dual citi-
    zenship cases (sort of like how the Vietnam-era draft boards tended
    to biased against conscientious objectors) and will go out of their
    way to make life hard for such people.  Fortunately, there is an
    administrative review process within the State Department for hand-
    ling disputes of this kind, which makes it fairly unlikely that
    someone who really does want to retain dual citizenship will lose
    out unless they do something =really= dumb.

    In order to minimize the likelihood that you, a dual citizen, will
    run into problems with the State Department, the following sugges-
    tions may be helpful:

    ==> If you haven't acquired the second citizenship yet, discuss your
	plans with US consular officials.  Consider filing a notarized
	statement with the US consulate -- both just before =and= just
	after your foreign naturalization -- stating that you intend to
	retain your US citizenship, and that your foreign naturalization
	is not to be interpreted as a relinquishing of that US citizen-
	ship on your part.  Remember that you aren't asking for =permis-
	sion= to be a dual citizen; you're simply making your plans
	crystal clear so that no one can rightly claim you planned to
	give up your US citizenship.

    ==> Immediately =after= foreign naturalization, contact the nearest
	US embassy or consulate and ask them to make a determination on
	your US citizenship.  Be 100% up front with them; they're likely
	to interpret evasiveness on your part as evidence that you've
	given up your US citizenship and are trying to hide it from
	them.  And remember:  as long as the other country doesn't make
	you renounce your US citizenship, it is your =right= to retain
	US citizenship even while you also hold the citizenship of a
	foreign country.  Dual citizenship is =not= a favor that you
	need to beg the State Department to grant you.

    ==> If the State Department sends you a form letter to make it easy
	for you to renounce your US citizenship, don't fill it out.
	Instead, write your own letter explaining that you do not have,
	and have never had, any intention of giving up your US status.
	Again, don't think in terms of trying to convince the government
	to let you keep your US citizenship; as long as you undertook
	your foreign naturalization with no intent to lose your US citi-
	zenship, you are still a US citizen, period.

    ==> Keep your US passport renewed.  When you apply for a new pass-
	port, the proper way to deal with the part of the application
	that starts with "I have not, since acquiring United States cit-
	izenship" is to line out the parts that do not apply to you
	(e.g., naturalization in or allegiance to a foreign country) and
	attach a letter of explanation.  I believe you'll have to do
	this each and every time you subsequently renew your passport.

    ==> Whenever you enter the US, =always= identify yourself as a US
	citizen and =always= use your US passport -- even if this means
	you carry both passports with you when you travel.

    ==> =Always= mention your US citizenship on any form from the other
	country (e.g., passport application) which asks if you are a
	dual citizen.  There is at least one case on record of a dual
	US/Canadian woman who lost her US citizenship because the Cana-
	dian passport application she filled out asked if she was a
	citizen of any other country in addition to Canada, and she
	inadvertently answered "no".  (The Canadian passport application
	has since, by the way, been reworded to make this particular
	mistake less likely in the future; but watch out for other coun-
	tries' forms.)

    ==> Do other things a US citizen living abroad is expected to do --
	such as filing a US tax return every year (even if the various
	exclusions for foreign income and/or foreign tax mean you don't
	owe Uncle Sam anything); reporting your address to the nearest
	US embassy or consulate; and registering your children born
	abroad with the US embassy/consulate.

The above are not "legal requirements" for retaining dual citizenship.
However, if you do these things conscientiously, the chances are much
less that you'll find the State Department seriously pursuing a loss-of-
citizenship proceeding against you.

========================================================================

Q:  Isn't there something inherently unethical about being a dual citi-
    zen?  I mean, how can you be a loyal American and at the same time
    owe allegiance to some other country?

A:  This is inherently a question of political philosophy, which I won't
    presume to argue.  The fact remains, though, that the Supreme Court
    has ruled dual citizenship is legal -- and Congress has amended the
    Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect that reality -- so the
    concept is now a firmly entrenched part of the law of the land.

========================================================================

Q:  How likely is it that the Supreme Court will reverse its earlier
    decisions and once again ban dual citizenship?

A:  Not likely at all, since the Afroyim and Terrazas decisions have now
    been written into law by Congress.  In order for dual citizenship to
    again become impossible in the US, Congress would have to change the
    law back (in defiance of the Afroyim and Terrazas rulings); the
    State Department would have to start stripping dual citizens of US
    citizenship (again, in defiance of the Supreme Court rulings); at
    least one such case would have to make it all the way to the Supreme
    Court (after rulings in lower courts in favor of the individual had
    been appealed by the government); and the Supreme Court would have
    to decide to reverse its earlier decisions.  Don't hold your breath.

========================================================================
-- 
Viewlogic Systems, Inc.                         Przemek Skoskiewicz
293 Boston Post Road West
Marlborough, MA 01752-4615, USA
email: przemek@viewlogic.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish