53 thoughts on “Letter from Consulate General July 25, 1980”
BINGO and thank you, Ladybug, her husband, and Petros!
I will distribute copies of this letter to several people whom I know became Canadians prior to the date of this letter and who have applied or are about to apply for a relinquishment CLN. Seems to me this letter is a “slam dunk” in any contest with DOS about the application, as long as nothing was ever done after taking Canadian citizenship to assert or exercise US citizenship. But I’m not a lawyer, just someone who used to work with them a lot on various things and has a good idea of how to structure a legal case.
Thank God for the internet and websites like this one.
Thank you, Thank You, Thank You!
Feels like justification. Thank you.
I think my husband may have one of those borderline cases. He became a Canadian citizen on December 10, 1980 but he was only 15. He never returned to the US except for the occasional business trip so the rule about failing to return to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday applies to him. He turned 25 in 1990.
What year did the citizenship laws change and could he still be considered a US citizen because he was a minor at the time he relinquished and the laws changed before he turned 25?
An employee of the US gov told me that s. 349(a) (1)(2) didn’t matter (which I didn’t believe but obviously bothered me … a lot).
What this makes me feel, to see this!The actual application of s. 349(a)(1). In their own words! On their own letterhead! Thank you!
@Ladybug: Thank you again. Because of this information from you, I just took the step of e-mailing the Consulate in Vancouver asking if they have records their of any documents which would have been signed in 1973, correspondence with anyone who relinquished by becoming a Canadian citizen and copies of certificate of loss of nationality.
I had said I was staying as far away from US Consulates as I could. But, Ladybug, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, you gave this Cowardly Lion the courage she needed to take that step. You will make a fine CSIS Director in the War of 2012: The Movie.
Thank you, Ladybug! I became a Canadian citizen in 1971 and renounced my US citizenship at that time. I am planning on visiting the Consulate in Halifax to get my CLN and this letter should help in that regard. Thanks!
I’m jealous! I became a Canadian in 1998.
@Ladybug (and @TomOn)…
Of course this valuable letter you’ve provided to us does me no good given all the “bad things” I have done to negate relinquishment for me. But, I thank you as much as everyone else of that time — just to know that I am not crazy in what I remembered.
Thanks so much for the Isaac Brock site, for you making your way to it and for providing this proof, whether we received it or not.
You have so much good Karma coming your way!!!
@ Ladybug
Thanks so much for publishing on this website the copy of your husband’s letter from the Consulate General. This helps so many of us.
@ omghe’s
Earlier today Blaze posted a link regarding State Department information on the 1986 amendment to the “Immigration and Nationality Act”. It effects those “relinquishments” pre 1985 so could help re your husband. The link is: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/109065.pdf.
Not sure if his being a minor could change things or not, but it is worth a read.
@all
Actually the news is even better. In 1986, the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended to include the requirement that the expatriating Act was performed (assuming it was voluntary) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. This change reflected two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that stated that Congress could not take the citizenship of a U.S. citizen (14th amendment) type unless the person “intended to relinquish”. (There was a time when people wanted U.S. citizenship.)
The confusion actually starts somewhere between 1990 and 1992 when the State Department adopted an administrative presumption that when people became dual citizens, they did so with the intention of retaining U.S. citizenship. That is the source of the problems today (assuming you view U.S. citizenship as a problem to be solved).
Now going back to the period prior to the administrative presumption. What happened was the the State Department made a determination of loss of U.S. citizenship. What then happened was that if you wanted to retain U.S. citizenship (i.e. fight) you had to apply to an agency called the Board of Appellate Review. This was in located in Washington D.C. The Chairman was man named Alan James. It was a very small office and he wrote most of the decisions himself (even though it was a board of three who heard the case).
Mr. James overturned a large number of losses of U.S. citizenship. He also wrote hundreds (maybe thousands) of decisions making it clear that if the State Department had to prove intention to relinquish.
But, here is my point: A failure to apply to the Board of Appellate Review strikes me as further evidence of your intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, up until 1973 Canada, as part of becoming a Canadian, required an oath of allegiance that included renouncing all other citizenships.
So, those who became Canadian citizens in the 60s, 70s and part of the 80s, have at least two things going for them:
1. As the letter indicates, the State Department presumed a loss of U.S. citizenship at the point of becoming a Canadian citizen;
2. A failure to apply to the Board of Appellate Review is further evidence of:
– your acceptance of the State Department Decree that that you had lost your U.S. citizenship; and
– your unwillingness to challenge that position
Finally those who became Canadian citizens prior to 1973 have the further point that the Canadian oath of citizenship required that you renounce all foreign citizenships (this is evidence of the intention).
Re a requirement of a CLN – I have seen this discussed all over the place. I have never completely understood why. The relevant law is clear: You lose your U.S. citizenship if you do ….
Those is no requirement in the statute of a CLN (but I acknowledge that there are some people who think otherwise).
I have referred people to the following post on numerous occasions.
These are (I believe the general principles). You need to make sure though that you don’t do anything that would be consistent with retaining U.S. citizenship (passports, tax returns, etc.).
If you became Canadian during this time period, (obviously you need to get independent and competent and legal advice), but it looks to me like you have reason for optimism.
To do a take on an old cigarette ad:
“U.S. citizenship – it’s not for everybody, and if you’re lucky:
It isn’t for you!”
Thanks tiger. I read through the pdf you linked to. I’m still confused about how minors properly lost their citizenship in 1980. We’re going to assume he lost his US citizenship since he became a Canadian 6 years before the new law came into effect and we assume it’s wasn’t retroactive with respect to minors.
He’s been to the US on business trips over 50 times in the last 30 years and he’s never once been asked why he doesn’t travel on a US passport even though he was born in California. Maybe their computers already show him as having lost his US citizenship.
@ omghe’s
I wouldn’t count on the computers already showing him as having lost his citizenship. I relinquished (became a Cdn. in 1972) have travelled very frequently back to States for visits with family. I only think they are starting now to make an issue of U.S. birth place, Reading other posts here, it sounds like in some cases info is being typed into a data base at point of entry and in other cases border guards are asking why you are not on U.S.passport or “are you filing your tax returns”. I guess what I am saying is that your husband may very well no longer be an American but he might still have to prove that to the Americans.
@renounceuscitizenship
I agree with much of what you say, but I have to point out that failure to apply to a board of review isn’t an argument for relinquishment, unless you got a CLN (in which case what’s the argument?). The board of review was even less well-known than the CLN; in fact, the only thing I knew and to this day know about the board of review is what it says in the appeal procedures printed on the back of the cover letter that came with my CLN. If you didn’t get a CLN, you wouldn’t likely know about a board of review. Unless you contacted the Embassy or a consulate and said, “hi, my understanding is that by becoming a Canadian, I lost my US citizenship, but that isn’t what I wanted to happen, what can I do about it?” and hope that whoever you contacted had a clue about this (which he/she may very well not have).
But yes, this is very good news for anyone who became a Canadian citizen prior to 1980 at least and maybe later, and who believed and wanted that this meant a loss of US citizenship. The letter very clearly confirms what we all believed and thought was common knowledge — and which in fact was true. “Your naturalization in Canada is regarded as highly persuasive evidence of an intent to relinquish United States nationality.” Yep. I think that is pretty hard to argue against, even 35 years later. That was what the law and interpretation was then, that’s what we all believed, we all got on with our lives, and if when we weren’t looking and paying attention (and why in hell would we, it wasn’t our bloody country any longer) the US changed the rules in the 1980s or 1990s, why/how would we know or care?
I’m no lawyer, but I’ve seen legal cases constructed and have done quasi-legal cases in labour adjudication, and I have what can be called a very high comfort level with this letter and what it means for my wife and her friends, and many others on this thread.
This is such a complicated area, and I am a complete amateur. American law on loss of citizenship has been determined in part by a number of critical court decisions, including:
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Vance v. Terrazas (1980)
There has also been a whole lot of federal policy decisions affecting the question, often following upon court decisions. As of 1979, when the apparently expatriating act occurred, such acts were generally considered expatriating only if done with the intent of renouncing citizenship. Hence, the content of the letter seems anachronistic. I caution not to take the content of the letter as definitive.
If you want to pursue this further, I recommend looking up the court cases above in Wikipedia and following the various links. It will acquaint you with the complexity of law and how it has evolved.
Again — the comments of an amateur.
@ renouncecitizenship
Thanks you for your detailed post of today @ 8:46 P.M. I totally agree that the confusion started in the early 90’s. On a previous post I referred to my late husband reading an article in the Globe and Mail regarding “getting back your U.S. citizenship” by proving that you did not really intend to “relinquish” it when you performed the expatriating act of becoming a citizen of Canada. The Americans decided they had perhaps been “too hasty” in allowing the relinquishments of the 60’s,70,s and 80’s. However, I really don’t think they have any right to make new rules of 1990 forward be retroactive to those of us who relinquished so long ago. Your post is very good for explaining the chronological order of their immigration and nationality act and amendments.
The unfortunate thing is we might have to “prove” all of this to border guards, financial institutions etc.
I do have a question for you. I read on another blog you had written that you plan on “renouncing”. Have you been able to achieve that or are you still waiting.
Thanks again.
@Schubert
If you have your CLN handy, could you post the exact language that refers to the Board. Does the very jurisdiction of the Board depend on the State Department issuing a CLN?
The jurisdiction of the Board shall include appeals from decisions in the following cases:
(a) Appeals from administrative determinations of loss of nationality or expatriation under subpart C of part 50 of this chapter.”
I suppose the question is whether “administrative determinations of loss of nationality or expatriation” are always accompanied by a CLN. Either way, it seems to me that the failure to appeal is simply reinforcement of the idea that you accept the determination of the State Department (you had the requisite intention). This should strengthen your claim that you had irrevocably lost your citizenship.
Question: are you aware of any cases where any branch of the U.S. government has taken the position that somebody is still a U.S. citizen even if a CLN has been issued (as crazy as this sounds)? The reason I ask is that, as I understand the situation, the administrative standard of proof that started in 1991, was available to people who had lost their citizenship in earlier years.
@ Northern Shrike I wouldn’t want to take legal advice from Wikipedia. It may be a good starting point for identifying cases etc, but then it’s time to talk to a lawyer. Wikipedia is rife with all sorts of errors that I’ve spotted, not to mention oversimplifications. It’s not a definite reference source on anything IMO. And I’ve had decades of professional research experience and refereed publications (Wikipedia isn’t remotely a refereed journal).
In 1976 the declaration form I got from State (much shorter and simpler than current Form 4079) clearly asks on the second page, “5. Did you intend to relinquish your United States citizenship when you performed the act described? (Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’) If your answer is ‘no,’ explain fully in the Remarks Section.” If you said yes, you didn’t have to explain a thing. On the first page of the form, however, there was a “special note to persons who do not desire to retain United States nationality” under which you could sign a statement saying “I performed the act of expatriation set forth in Paragraph 3 voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing United States nationaltiy” and under the signature block it further says “if the above statement is signed, the remainder of this form need not be completed by you.”
They made it very easy for you if you wanted to relinquish. If that isn’t what you wanted, it was tough to argue your way out of it. You needed to submit evidence. YOU NEEDED TO SAY ON THE FORM UNDER QUESTIONS 6 AND 7 THAT YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH A US CONSULAR OFFICER and they gave a phone number to call. If you didn’t wish to submit any evidence and just signed the declaration, that was it, game over, no contest, the CLN was in the works (as long as you forwarded with the form any US passport, naturalization certificate or other documents issued by the US government as a US citizen).
You didn’t have to go to a consulate to get out, you only had to go if you DIDN’T want to get out.
I’d copy the form here but it’s got too much of my own scribbling in the margins to identify me to make that feasible. Take my word for it, in 1976 it was very easy to lose US citizenship by becoming Canadian, it was very difficult in fact NOT to lose it in that case.
I’m not aware of any Supreme Court cases between 1976 and 1980 that would have changed any of this.
@Northern Shrike
Yes, it is complicated. You have correctly cited the two important Supreme Court decisions.
Here is the problem (at least the way I see it) and the source of much of the confusion. To put it simply: The problem is that the conduct and policy of the Government always “trails the law”.
The two cases you cite are based on the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the 14th amendment of the constitution prohibits the government from “taking your citizenship”. Although Vance v. Terrazas was decided in 1979 (the Supreme Court part of it), it took a full seven years – up to the 1986 amendments in the INA for the government to actually recognize and apply the law. Up until 1986 there were many people who were afraid to perform an expatriating act even though they knew of the Vance case. The reason was that they didn’t trust the State Department to apply the law – as the Supreme Court defined it. The State Department simply ignored the law until 1986. What are you supposed to do? What difference does the law make, if you think it won’t be applied? Why did people not have confidence in the Vance decision? Simple, because there were no amendments to the actual law and because U.S. consulates made no change in their published policies and procedures. Now, let’s fast forward a bit. So, the law changes in 1986. Wonderful, the INA now refers to the requirement of “intention to relinquish”. Fantastic, but then the questions become:
1. What is the test for intention; and
2. What is the required standard of proof.
How will all of this actually work?
So, there were a lot of people (1986 to 1991) who were still very nervous about putting their U.S. citizenship at risk by becoming Canadian. What some of them did during this period was to actually go out and swear an affidavit of intention that would say something to the effect that:
“I am becoming a Canadian citizen and is so doing I:
Do not intentend to renounce my U.S. citizenship; and
Specfically intend to retain my U.S. citizenship.”
They would then put the affidavit in a vault or in a lawyer’s office or something.
In 1991, by adopting the adminstrative presumption of intention, the State Departement created a “safe harbour” provision, giving people “safety” to become a Canadian without losing their U.S. citizenship.
Citizenship is a very emotional issue for a great many people. Some people care a lot about it and some don’t.
Anyway, the message is:
You need to distinquish between what the Supreme Court says the law is and what the government says the law is. The history of this subject makes it clear that these two things are not always the same.
@Schubert
Great comment – as you point out, it was very easy to lose your citizenship and very hard to retain it.
In the last century more people wanted to retain their U.S. citizenship than lose it. Now, renunciations are soaring!
@renounceuscitizenship
There is no way in hell that I can see how any US agency can claim you’re still a USC if you have a CLN unless you’ve appealed to have the loss of citizenship overturned. That’s at your application, not theirs. Worrying about that is a degree of paranoia that I can’t imagine falling subject to. Or spending any time worrying about.
Any fact (if it is fact) that the post-1990 standard of proof or burden of proof might be “available” to me or anyone else in my situation means just that, it’s available — it can’t be rammed down my throat, I have to ask for it. That my appeal would be granted, given what I said on the form not to mention my letter to Kissinger, is extremely unlikely. It is VERY clear on both that I did not desire to retain or regain US nationality and still don’t, believe me. There is a Supreme Court ruling that you do have a right to get rid of your US nationality, whether by renouncing or relinquishing, and as it happens I actually did use the renounce word on both documents in my own hand. Just to make sure they got the message.
The appeal procedure does state that “any holding of loss of US nationality may be appealed to the Board of Appellate Review in the Department of State … (under) Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 50.60-50.72.” Your appeal has to be based on “facts and circumstances you didn’t mention when the case was previously considered or which are different from the facts and circumstances shown previously” and must be supported by sworn affidavits and preferably also official records or statements of foreign government officials. Presumably statements they tortured you into becoming a Canadian, or they didn’t really swear you into Candian citizenship? God knows what. Anyway, that’s MY request and MY affidavit, not theirs. They can’t appeal to overturn my CLN by any rational stretch of the imagination; I have to appeal it. As if I would …
You wouldn’t go to the Board unless you were aware of a holding of loss of US nationality and were also aware of the existence of the Board of Appellate Review in DOS. I don’t see any plausible way of that happening without reading the appeal procedures document on the back of the cover letter of your very own CLN, at least not for most of us mortals.
How about focusing on real issues?
@Tiger
I refer to this part of your comment:
“On a previous post I referred to my late husband reading an article in the Globe and Mail regarding “getting back your U.S. citizenship” by proving that you did not really intend to “relinquish” it when you performed the expatriating act of becoming a citizen of Canada. The Americans decided they had perhaps been “too hasty” in allowing the relinquishments of the 60′s,70,s and 80′s. However, I really don’t think they have any right to make new rules of 1990 forward be retroactive to those of us who relinquished so long ago.”
I don’t understand the situation to be that any new rules were made that were “retroactive to those of us who relinquished so long ago.”
Here is what I think is going on:
Those who lost their U.S. citizenship in the 60s, 70s, 80s, are being given the benefit of the 1991 administrative standard for the presumption of intention. But, you don’t have to avail yourself of it. In other words, if you want U.S. citizenship back that’s okay. But, if you don’t, then just continue not being a U.S. citizen.
Now, I have not been thinking about this much for a number of years, and I would strongly suggest you get good legal advice, but I really think that if you lost your U.S. citizenship in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and that you have not behaved as a U.S. citizen (applying for passports and filing tax returns), that you are not a U.S. citizen. (But, that is not a legal opinion.)
I have read about all kinds of people who, because somebody told them that they were considered to be a U.S. citizen (even if they became a Canadian in 1970), believe they should file a bunch of back tax returns, go into OVDI or something.
If you are worried about compliance issues, the first thing you should do is confirm your U.S. citizenship or U.S. greencardness.
@ renouncecitizenship
Thanks for the clarification. I was certainly hoping the U.S. would not be attempting to “back-date” a standard of 1991. I actually believe that Steven in a post from a couple of days ago, suggested that all of us who expatriated back in the 60’s,70’s,and 80’s should most definitely not start to file income tax forms to the IRS. I think it was also what Calgary 411’s immigration lawyer told her – she should not have filed back returns as she truly had performed an expatriating act.
In an earlier post from today, I mentioned that someone I know (Cdn. citizen in 1995) was recently told at a seminar put on by a very large Canadian law firm at one of our Canadian Universities that those people who had taken out Canadian citizenship prior to 1986, were no longer considered to be Americans. When I researched the significance of that date, I found there was an amendment to the INA in 1986 which referenced “intent”.
I believe there are many of us on this site who truly believe we are “no longer Americans”. It is just having to prove it to Border Guards, who have the attitude “you are an American until we tell you you’re not” or prove it to our Financial Institutions who in most cases have not done the research many of us on the site have done. An example is a document that I received from the Royal Bank that stated: “You are an American if you were born in the U.S.”. Well as we know that is not necessarily true. What they should have said was: “You may be an American if you were born in the U.S”.
@Tiger
To the extent that “proof” is a problem now, I would expect it will work itself out fairly quickly. Obviously nobody knows the answer at the moment (if there is one answer). It would seem to me that you should use your certificate of Cdn citizenship or passport and photocopy the relevant section of the INA and keep it with your Canadian id. Also, if I am not mistaken you can get documentation showing the date you became a Cdn citizen which should be added to your portfolio. Not sure what else one could do. The only thing you can say is that you are Canadian, I became Canadian on such a day (back up with proof of date) and did so with the intention of relinquishing my U.S. citizenship. Hence, my Canadian passport. I would think that a having documentation of the date you became Cdn would strengthen your claim. Also, U.S. border guards obviously can admit you to the U.S. as a Canadian.
BINGO and thank you, Ladybug, her husband, and Petros!
I will distribute copies of this letter to several people whom I know became Canadians prior to the date of this letter and who have applied or are about to apply for a relinquishment CLN. Seems to me this letter is a “slam dunk” in any contest with DOS about the application, as long as nothing was ever done after taking Canadian citizenship to assert or exercise US citizenship. But I’m not a lawyer, just someone who used to work with them a lot on various things and has a good idea of how to structure a legal case.
Thank God for the internet and websites like this one.
Thank you, Thank You, Thank You!
Feels like justification. Thank you.
I think my husband may have one of those borderline cases. He became a Canadian citizen on December 10, 1980 but he was only 15. He never returned to the US except for the occasional business trip so the rule about failing to return to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday applies to him. He turned 25 in 1990.
What year did the citizenship laws change and could he still be considered a US citizen because he was a minor at the time he relinquished and the laws changed before he turned 25?
An employee of the US gov told me that s. 349(a) (1)(2) didn’t matter (which I didn’t believe but obviously bothered me … a lot).
What this makes me feel, to see this!The actual application of s. 349(a)(1). In their own words! On their own letterhead! Thank you!
@Ladybug: Thank you again. Because of this information from you, I just took the step of e-mailing the Consulate in Vancouver asking if they have records their of any documents which would have been signed in 1973, correspondence with anyone who relinquished by becoming a Canadian citizen and copies of certificate of loss of nationality.
I had said I was staying as far away from US Consulates as I could. But, Ladybug, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, you gave this Cowardly Lion the courage she needed to take that step. You will make a fine CSIS Director in the War of 2012: The Movie.
Thank you, Ladybug! I became a Canadian citizen in 1971 and renounced my US citizenship at that time. I am planning on visiting the Consulate in Halifax to get my CLN and this letter should help in that regard. Thanks!
I’m jealous! I became a Canadian in 1998.
@Ladybug (and @TomOn)…
Of course this valuable letter you’ve provided to us does me no good given all the “bad things” I have done to negate relinquishment for me. But, I thank you as much as everyone else of that time — just to know that I am not crazy in what I remembered.
Thanks so much for the Isaac Brock site, for you making your way to it and for providing this proof, whether we received it or not.
You have so much good Karma coming your way!!!
@ Ladybug
Thanks so much for publishing on this website the copy of your husband’s letter from the Consulate General. This helps so many of us.
@ omghe’s
Earlier today Blaze posted a link regarding State Department information on the 1986 amendment to the “Immigration and Nationality Act”. It effects those “relinquishments” pre 1985 so could help re your husband. The link is: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/109065.pdf.
Not sure if his being a minor could change things or not, but it is worth a read.
@all
Actually the news is even better. In 1986, the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended to include the requirement that the expatriating Act was performed (assuming it was voluntary) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. This change reflected two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that stated that Congress could not take the citizenship of a U.S. citizen (14th amendment) type unless the person “intended to relinquish”. (There was a time when people wanted U.S. citizenship.)
The confusion actually starts somewhere between 1990 and 1992 when the State Department adopted an administrative presumption that when people became dual citizens, they did so with the intention of retaining U.S. citizenship. That is the source of the problems today (assuming you view U.S. citizenship as a problem to be solved).
Now going back to the period prior to the administrative presumption. What happened was the the State Department made a determination of loss of U.S. citizenship. What then happened was that if you wanted to retain U.S. citizenship (i.e. fight) you had to apply to an agency called the Board of Appellate Review. This was in located in Washington D.C. The Chairman was man named Alan James. It was a very small office and he wrote most of the decisions himself (even though it was a board of three who heard the case).
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Alan+James+Board+of+Appellate+Review&pbx=1&oq=Alan+James+Board+of+Appellate+Review&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=769l8582l0l8976l36l32l0l3l3l0l304l4173l3.27.1.1l35l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1bc91b98b7186299&biw=1440&bih=700
Mr. James overturned a large number of losses of U.S. citizenship. He also wrote hundreds (maybe thousands) of decisions making it clear that if the State Department had to prove intention to relinquish.
But, here is my point: A failure to apply to the Board of Appellate Review strikes me as further evidence of your intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, up until 1973 Canada, as part of becoming a Canadian, required an oath of allegiance that included renouncing all other citizenships.
http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm#F.%20Dual%20Citizenship%28txt%29
So, those who became Canadian citizens in the 60s, 70s and part of the 80s, have at least two things going for them:
1. As the letter indicates, the State Department presumed a loss of U.S. citizenship at the point of becoming a Canadian citizen;
2. A failure to apply to the Board of Appellate Review is further evidence of:
– your acceptance of the State Department Decree that that you had lost your U.S. citizenship; and
– your unwillingness to challenge that position
Finally those who became Canadian citizens prior to 1973 have the further point that the Canadian oath of citizenship required that you renounce all foreign citizenships (this is evidence of the intention).
Re a requirement of a CLN – I have seen this discussed all over the place. I have never completely understood why. The relevant law is clear: You lose your U.S. citizenship if you do ….
Those is no requirement in the statute of a CLN (but I acknowledge that there are some people who think otherwise).
I have referred people to the following post on numerous occasions.
http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/expatriating-acts-the-status-of-your-u-s-citizenship/
These are (I believe the general principles). You need to make sure though that you don’t do anything that would be consistent with retaining U.S. citizenship (passports, tax returns, etc.).
If you became Canadian during this time period, (obviously you need to get independent and competent and legal advice), but it looks to me like you have reason for optimism.
To do a take on an old cigarette ad:
“U.S. citizenship – it’s not for everybody, and if you’re lucky:
It isn’t for you!”
Thanks tiger. I read through the pdf you linked to. I’m still confused about how minors properly lost their citizenship in 1980. We’re going to assume he lost his US citizenship since he became a Canadian 6 years before the new law came into effect and we assume it’s wasn’t retroactive with respect to minors.
He’s been to the US on business trips over 50 times in the last 30 years and he’s never once been asked why he doesn’t travel on a US passport even though he was born in California. Maybe their computers already show him as having lost his US citizenship.
@ omghe’s
I wouldn’t count on the computers already showing him as having lost his citizenship. I relinquished (became a Cdn. in 1972) have travelled very frequently back to States for visits with family. I only think they are starting now to make an issue of U.S. birth place, Reading other posts here, it sounds like in some cases info is being typed into a data base at point of entry and in other cases border guards are asking why you are not on U.S.passport or “are you filing your tax returns”. I guess what I am saying is that your husband may very well no longer be an American but he might still have to prove that to the Americans.
@renounceuscitizenship
I agree with much of what you say, but I have to point out that failure to apply to a board of review isn’t an argument for relinquishment, unless you got a CLN (in which case what’s the argument?). The board of review was even less well-known than the CLN; in fact, the only thing I knew and to this day know about the board of review is what it says in the appeal procedures printed on the back of the cover letter that came with my CLN. If you didn’t get a CLN, you wouldn’t likely know about a board of review. Unless you contacted the Embassy or a consulate and said, “hi, my understanding is that by becoming a Canadian, I lost my US citizenship, but that isn’t what I wanted to happen, what can I do about it?” and hope that whoever you contacted had a clue about this (which he/she may very well not have).
But yes, this is very good news for anyone who became a Canadian citizen prior to 1980 at least and maybe later, and who believed and wanted that this meant a loss of US citizenship. The letter very clearly confirms what we all believed and thought was common knowledge — and which in fact was true. “Your naturalization in Canada is regarded as highly persuasive evidence of an intent to relinquish United States nationality.” Yep. I think that is pretty hard to argue against, even 35 years later. That was what the law and interpretation was then, that’s what we all believed, we all got on with our lives, and if when we weren’t looking and paying attention (and why in hell would we, it wasn’t our bloody country any longer) the US changed the rules in the 1980s or 1990s, why/how would we know or care?
I’m no lawyer, but I’ve seen legal cases constructed and have done quasi-legal cases in labour adjudication, and I have what can be called a very high comfort level with this letter and what it means for my wife and her friends, and many others on this thread.
This is such a complicated area, and I am a complete amateur. American law on loss of citizenship has been determined in part by a number of critical court decisions, including:
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Vance v. Terrazas (1980)
There has also been a whole lot of federal policy decisions affecting the question, often following upon court decisions. As of 1979, when the apparently expatriating act occurred, such acts were generally considered expatriating only if done with the intent of renouncing citizenship. Hence, the content of the letter seems anachronistic. I caution not to take the content of the letter as definitive.
If you want to pursue this further, I recommend looking up the court cases above in Wikipedia and following the various links. It will acquaint you with the complexity of law and how it has evolved.
Again — the comments of an amateur.
@ renouncecitizenship
Thanks you for your detailed post of today @ 8:46 P.M. I totally agree that the confusion started in the early 90’s. On a previous post I referred to my late husband reading an article in the Globe and Mail regarding “getting back your U.S. citizenship” by proving that you did not really intend to “relinquish” it when you performed the expatriating act of becoming a citizen of Canada. The Americans decided they had perhaps been “too hasty” in allowing the relinquishments of the 60’s,70,s and 80’s. However, I really don’t think they have any right to make new rules of 1990 forward be retroactive to those of us who relinquished so long ago. Your post is very good for explaining the chronological order of their immigration and nationality act and amendments.
The unfortunate thing is we might have to “prove” all of this to border guards, financial institutions etc.
I do have a question for you. I read on another blog you had written that you plan on “renouncing”. Have you been able to achieve that or are you still waiting.
Thanks again.
@Schubert
If you have your CLN handy, could you post the exact language that refers to the Board. Does the very jurisdiction of the Board depend on the State Department issuing a CLN?
Here is what I think the jurisdiction was:
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title22/22-1.0.1.1.7.html#22:1.0.1.1.7.0.1.3
Ҥ 7.3 Jurisdiction.
top
The jurisdiction of the Board shall include appeals from decisions in the following cases:
(a) Appeals from administrative determinations of loss of nationality or expatriation under subpart C of part 50 of this chapter.”
I suppose the question is whether “administrative determinations of loss of nationality or expatriation” are always accompanied by a CLN. Either way, it seems to me that the failure to appeal is simply reinforcement of the idea that you accept the determination of the State Department (you had the requisite intention). This should strengthen your claim that you had irrevocably lost your citizenship.
Question: are you aware of any cases where any branch of the U.S. government has taken the position that somebody is still a U.S. citizen even if a CLN has been issued (as crazy as this sounds)? The reason I ask is that, as I understand the situation, the administrative standard of proof that started in 1991, was available to people who had lost their citizenship in earlier years.
@ Northern Shrike I wouldn’t want to take legal advice from Wikipedia. It may be a good starting point for identifying cases etc, but then it’s time to talk to a lawyer. Wikipedia is rife with all sorts of errors that I’ve spotted, not to mention oversimplifications. It’s not a definite reference source on anything IMO. And I’ve had decades of professional research experience and refereed publications (Wikipedia isn’t remotely a refereed journal).
In 1976 the declaration form I got from State (much shorter and simpler than current Form 4079) clearly asks on the second page, “5. Did you intend to relinquish your United States citizenship when you performed the act described? (Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’) If your answer is ‘no,’ explain fully in the Remarks Section.” If you said yes, you didn’t have to explain a thing. On the first page of the form, however, there was a “special note to persons who do not desire to retain United States nationality” under which you could sign a statement saying “I performed the act of expatriation set forth in Paragraph 3 voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing United States nationaltiy” and under the signature block it further says “if the above statement is signed, the remainder of this form need not be completed by you.”
They made it very easy for you if you wanted to relinquish. If that isn’t what you wanted, it was tough to argue your way out of it. You needed to submit evidence. YOU NEEDED TO SAY ON THE FORM UNDER QUESTIONS 6 AND 7 THAT YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH A US CONSULAR OFFICER and they gave a phone number to call. If you didn’t wish to submit any evidence and just signed the declaration, that was it, game over, no contest, the CLN was in the works (as long as you forwarded with the form any US passport, naturalization certificate or other documents issued by the US government as a US citizen).
You didn’t have to go to a consulate to get out, you only had to go if you DIDN’T want to get out.
I’d copy the form here but it’s got too much of my own scribbling in the margins to identify me to make that feasible. Take my word for it, in 1976 it was very easy to lose US citizenship by becoming Canadian, it was very difficult in fact NOT to lose it in that case.
I’m not aware of any Supreme Court cases between 1976 and 1980 that would have changed any of this.
@Northern Shrike
Yes, it is complicated. You have correctly cited the two important Supreme Court decisions.
Here is the problem (at least the way I see it) and the source of much of the confusion. To put it simply: The problem is that the conduct and policy of the Government always “trails the law”.
The two cases you cite are based on the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the 14th amendment of the constitution prohibits the government from “taking your citizenship”. Although Vance v. Terrazas was decided in 1979 (the Supreme Court part of it), it took a full seven years – up to the 1986 amendments in the INA for the government to actually recognize and apply the law. Up until 1986 there were many people who were afraid to perform an expatriating act even though they knew of the Vance case. The reason was that they didn’t trust the State Department to apply the law – as the Supreme Court defined it. The State Department simply ignored the law until 1986. What are you supposed to do? What difference does the law make, if you think it won’t be applied? Why did people not have confidence in the Vance decision? Simple, because there were no amendments to the actual law and because U.S. consulates made no change in their published policies and procedures. Now, let’s fast forward a bit. So, the law changes in 1986. Wonderful, the INA now refers to the requirement of “intention to relinquish”. Fantastic, but then the questions become:
1. What is the test for intention; and
2. What is the required standard of proof.
How will all of this actually work?
So, there were a lot of people (1986 to 1991) who were still very nervous about putting their U.S. citizenship at risk by becoming Canadian. What some of them did during this period was to actually go out and swear an affidavit of intention that would say something to the effect that:
“I am becoming a Canadian citizen and is so doing I:
Do not intentend to renounce my U.S. citizenship; and
Specfically intend to retain my U.S. citizenship.”
They would then put the affidavit in a vault or in a lawyer’s office or something.
In 1991, by adopting the adminstrative presumption of intention, the State Departement created a “safe harbour” provision, giving people “safety” to become a Canadian without losing their U.S. citizenship.
Citizenship is a very emotional issue for a great many people. Some people care a lot about it and some don’t.
Anyway, the message is:
You need to distinquish between what the Supreme Court says the law is and what the government says the law is. The history of this subject makes it clear that these two things are not always the same.
@Schubert
Great comment – as you point out, it was very easy to lose your citizenship and very hard to retain it.
In the last century more people wanted to retain their U.S. citizenship than lose it. Now, renunciations are soaring!
@renounceuscitizenship
There is no way in hell that I can see how any US agency can claim you’re still a USC if you have a CLN unless you’ve appealed to have the loss of citizenship overturned. That’s at your application, not theirs. Worrying about that is a degree of paranoia that I can’t imagine falling subject to. Or spending any time worrying about.
Any fact (if it is fact) that the post-1990 standard of proof or burden of proof might be “available” to me or anyone else in my situation means just that, it’s available — it can’t be rammed down my throat, I have to ask for it. That my appeal would be granted, given what I said on the form not to mention my letter to Kissinger, is extremely unlikely. It is VERY clear on both that I did not desire to retain or regain US nationality and still don’t, believe me. There is a Supreme Court ruling that you do have a right to get rid of your US nationality, whether by renouncing or relinquishing, and as it happens I actually did use the renounce word on both documents in my own hand. Just to make sure they got the message.
The appeal procedure does state that “any holding of loss of US nationality may be appealed to the Board of Appellate Review in the Department of State … (under) Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 50.60-50.72.” Your appeal has to be based on “facts and circumstances you didn’t mention when the case was previously considered or which are different from the facts and circumstances shown previously” and must be supported by sworn affidavits and preferably also official records or statements of foreign government officials. Presumably statements they tortured you into becoming a Canadian, or they didn’t really swear you into Candian citizenship? God knows what. Anyway, that’s MY request and MY affidavit, not theirs. They can’t appeal to overturn my CLN by any rational stretch of the imagination; I have to appeal it. As if I would …
You wouldn’t go to the Board unless you were aware of a holding of loss of US nationality and were also aware of the existence of the Board of Appellate Review in DOS. I don’t see any plausible way of that happening without reading the appeal procedures document on the back of the cover letter of your very own CLN, at least not for most of us mortals.
How about focusing on real issues?
@Tiger
I refer to this part of your comment:
“On a previous post I referred to my late husband reading an article in the Globe and Mail regarding “getting back your U.S. citizenship” by proving that you did not really intend to “relinquish” it when you performed the expatriating act of becoming a citizen of Canada. The Americans decided they had perhaps been “too hasty” in allowing the relinquishments of the 60′s,70,s and 80′s. However, I really don’t think they have any right to make new rules of 1990 forward be retroactive to those of us who relinquished so long ago.”
I don’t understand the situation to be that any new rules were made that were “retroactive to those of us who relinquished so long ago.”
Here is what I think is going on:
Those who lost their U.S. citizenship in the 60s, 70s, 80s, are being given the benefit of the 1991 administrative standard for the presumption of intention. But, you don’t have to avail yourself of it. In other words, if you want U.S. citizenship back that’s okay. But, if you don’t, then just continue not being a U.S. citizen.
Now, I have not been thinking about this much for a number of years, and I would strongly suggest you get good legal advice, but I really think that if you lost your U.S. citizenship in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and that you have not behaved as a U.S. citizen (applying for passports and filing tax returns), that you are not a U.S. citizen. (But, that is not a legal opinion.)
I have read about all kinds of people who, because somebody told them that they were considered to be a U.S. citizen (even if they became a Canadian in 1970), believe they should file a bunch of back tax returns, go into OVDI or something.
If you are worried about compliance issues, the first thing you should do is confirm your U.S. citizenship or U.S. greencardness.
@ renouncecitizenship
Thanks for the clarification. I was certainly hoping the U.S. would not be attempting to “back-date” a standard of 1991. I actually believe that Steven in a post from a couple of days ago, suggested that all of us who expatriated back in the 60’s,70’s,and 80’s should most definitely not start to file income tax forms to the IRS. I think it was also what Calgary 411’s immigration lawyer told her – she should not have filed back returns as she truly had performed an expatriating act.
In an earlier post from today, I mentioned that someone I know (Cdn. citizen in 1995) was recently told at a seminar put on by a very large Canadian law firm at one of our Canadian Universities that those people who had taken out Canadian citizenship prior to 1986, were no longer considered to be Americans. When I researched the significance of that date, I found there was an amendment to the INA in 1986 which referenced “intent”.
I believe there are many of us on this site who truly believe we are “no longer Americans”. It is just having to prove it to Border Guards, who have the attitude “you are an American until we tell you you’re not” or prove it to our Financial Institutions who in most cases have not done the research many of us on the site have done. An example is a document that I received from the Royal Bank that stated: “You are an American if you were born in the U.S.”. Well as we know that is not necessarily true. What they should have said was: “You may be an American if you were born in the U.S”.
@Tiger
To the extent that “proof” is a problem now, I would expect it will work itself out fairly quickly. Obviously nobody knows the answer at the moment (if there is one answer). It would seem to me that you should use your certificate of Cdn citizenship or passport and photocopy the relevant section of the INA and keep it with your Canadian id. Also, if I am not mistaken you can get documentation showing the date you became a Cdn citizen which should be added to your portfolio. Not sure what else one could do. The only thing you can say is that you are Canadian, I became Canadian on such a day (back up with proof of date) and did so with the intention of relinquishing my U.S. citizenship. Hence, my Canadian passport. I would think that a having documentation of the date you became Cdn would strengthen your claim. Also, U.S. border guards obviously can admit you to the U.S. as a Canadian.