The up-to-date database resides in Part 2 (link at the bottom of this page).
Above is a link to data we are compiling on Relinquishments and Renunciations — a work in progress. This corresponds with the Consulate Report Directory (in sticky post below), tracking individual experiences for each Consulate, along with a timeline chart.
Note: We are using numbers instead of blog names for this public posting so there will be no compromise of private information. Your facts will help give a snapshot of relinquishment and renunciation activity and where that occurs.
Please submit information in the comments here (or someone can contact you privately). Thanks for all your help on this.
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED FOR Relinquishment and Renunciation Data (as reported on Isaac Brock), Part 1.
Part 2 is now open for your comments. Thank you.
*Thanks for that, Bruce!! Sounds familiar – just couldn’t remember the exact wording. But we both sure do remember the warning about losing US citizenship from the citizenship judge during the interview. I did look into dual citizenship quite some time ago (guess we all have mental lapses) – and I remember that the US consulate advised that it was definitely not recommended but could be done on application to them. Glad I didn’t do it now.
*In view of the political consequences, the drain on national finances, the cost to the financial institutions, violations of existing privacy (and other) laws and issues of national sovereignty, I really fail to understand why the rest (meaning ALL) of the countries in the world just don’t get the cahones to band together and tell the USA to GO PACK SAND!
@Woofy,
I received a copy of my citizenship oath (exact oath that Bruce wrote above) from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It took approx 4 – 6 weeks to arrive. The copy is not terribly clear as it is copied from microfiche, but it is certainly readable.
Interesting about the date. I know that I found the info online that the Canadian government recommended removing the ‘renunciatory’ oath April 3, 1973 but the Canadian law that stated “Dual citizenship was not allowed” did not actually change until 1977. It would not surprise me that citizenship courts continued to use the renunciatory oaths until they actually ‘ran out of them’. I know that Blaze’s oath,also contained the renunciatory oath and she was past the April 3, 1973 date. Our citizenship courts would have continued to state that individuals were giving up their U.S. citizenship right up until our law officially changed in 1977 and Canada then allowed dual citizenship.
*Looks like Saskatchewan is a l0ng way from Ottawa – and just as well cause we made it in under the wire.
*Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that in that earlier time which Canada did not recognize dual citizenship that signing that renunciatory document satisfied the requirement that Canada no longer recognized your former citizenship did not result in the US, as your former country, no longer considering you to be a US citizen.
It was somewhat like a man married to one woman swearing that he was divorcing that woman when he married a second woman. As far as the first wife was concerned, having not been granted a divorce by his first wife she considered he was still married to her. In order to be divorced from his first wife he would have to obtain a certificate of divorce from her.
This is where there could be a conflict of laws between two countries.
@ Roger – Vance vs. Terrazas dealt with this specific issue (in Terrazas’s case, the renunciatory language was in the Mexican citizenship oath, but the principle is the same).
@Tiger and Roger
Tiger, I didn’t fully realize until your post above that back in 1972 you’d actually contacted the consulate or embassy after becoming a Canadian and told them that, and they told you over the phone that you had irrevocably lost your USC.
Whoever you spoke with was derelict in his/her duty as a State Department employee. They should have followed up with you IN WRITING asking for written confirmation that you’d become Canadian freely and with intention/knowledge this would result in your loss of USC. Had they done that, and had you completed and signed the form and mailed it back to them, they should then have issued you a CLN by mail. That is precisely what happend to me in 1976; I became a Canadian in 1975 and I wrote the Secretary of State in 1976 (for the bicentennial) advising him in writing that I’d become a Canadian and had thereby “renounced” (my word at the time) my USC. I did that because I wanted to make a political statement and didn’t know about CLNs, but I got by mail the questionnaire (which I signed and returned by mail) and by the end of 1976 my CLN arrived by mail. If they knew someone had committed an expatriating act they were supposed to contact that person, give the person a chance to refute volition or intent if they wished, and then issue a CLN. There are a couple of others on Brock who had similar experiences to mine, e.g. Mr. Ladybug about whose Canadian naturalization a consulate learned (he isn’t sure quite how, he didn’t tell them as I recall) and he got a CLN in the mail some months after he failed to respond to the letter they sent him with the questionnaire. And this was in 1980, as I recall. We got this story from Ladybug, his wife.
Cold comfort now for you, I guess, because you don’t have any proof of your conversations other than your word against whoever the consular employee was (if you even remember or knew their name) 40 years later, but this is just one more example of how screwed up, random, inconsistent and basically incompetant the US bureaucracy has been in lots of these cases over the years. Some days it amazes me how their government manages to function at all.
@Schubert,
Exactly. Sure wish I did know the name of the person I spoke to . I called them initially (prior to my becoming a citizen) and it was actually their office who first informed me that I would be taking a renunciatory oath. Then I phoned them back to tell them ‘the dirty deed’ was done.
@Roger,
I understand that one country might not recognize the citizenship laws of another country. However, it was a sworn oath both spoken and signed.
Also, as broken man mentions above there have been circuit court rulings on this matter. I believe there was another court ruling from the early 80’s – Richards vs Secretary of State. Mr. Richards became a Canadian in 1971. In the late 70s he tried to get back his American citizenship – claimed he had only become a Canadian to get a particular job with the Boy Scouts of Canada. The lower court ruled that he had become a Canadian voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. The Circuit Court of California later agreed with the lower court. It was actually that case that DOS later addressed (late 90s) when the decision was made that an individual had to ‘prove’ his intent to relinquish. Prior to that, it was the Department of State’s requirement to ‘prove’ there was no intent to relinquish.
*Many thanks, Tiger, AnonAnon,Em,Bruce Newman, Woofy, and whomever I”’ve left out for all this relinquishment and oathy information. I’m surprised by some of it, didn’t know a lot of it, and impressed that anyone could come up with the actual words we spoke in our Canadian ceremonies decades ago. Yet, from the US point of view, anything we did or didn’t do, say, or thought, in/with/for Canada is moot, is it not? And the Americans do no’t give a damn about what anyone was told all those years ago, either, unless it was accompanied by an extant piece of writing, printing, signature, seal, or whatever have you.Doesn”t count. Not interested. Period.HOWEVER, we should not disregard one’s personal suffering (if that’s the word) as having persuasive powers of its own in the eyes and ears of an official having her own persuasive powers, such as was, for example, evidenced in my own case as being no more than a phone call away.Might it not be better to keep pressuring Vancouver in any way we can (via the embassy? via the State Department?) rather than risk a change and letting “Vancouver continue to dump on everyone as it has been doing?
Good morning, just some information to update the list of relinquishments and renunciations. I succeeded in obtaining my second renunciation appointment without having to write to anyone in Washington. It was held yesterday at the embassy in Stockholm (I am number three on your list for Stockholm). Things went smoothly. I was asked to double check the forms which they had filled in with my information, paid the fee, and was asked to explain to the consul why I wanted to renounce. They were very professional, the only thing which revealed any of their opinions was when the consul gave a somewhat irritated little sigh before letting me pronounce the oath. For anyone contemplating renouncing or relinquishing there, there is one window which is in a booth and you are called in there when you do the actual renunciation. Two young adult siblings were filling out relinquishment forms (form 4079 is only used for relinquishments in Stockholm) while I sat in the waiting area (my guess is that they were accidental Americans given the fact that they spoke native Swedish with each other). I was told to expect the CLN in January or February due to the holiday season which would slow things down a bit. Despite having a bad cold, I enjoyed a glass of champagne last night in front of the fireplace. A very good day indeed.
Congratulations! And you have been rewarded with a blizzard that will keep you in Sweden. Arlanda Airport is closed today.
I am glad that you enjoyed the glass. I often think, should I renounce or relinquish, I will hold an apero (a small cocktail like party as it is called in Switzerland) to thank those who have suffered with me as I have had to deal with the repercussions of trying to do the right thing, which was the wrong thing to do if a minnow took the OVDI approach. In Sweden, I would hold a rather large fika.
Thanks for the description on what to expect in the Stockholm embassy. It seems they have moved away from having one renounce at Window B in full view and hearing distance of all the visa applicants.
Congratulations, Citizen of Europe! Thanks for your report. I’m glad you were able to get your second appointment without having to resort to the hassle of writing Washington to push them, and now you’ve wrapped it all up before the end of the year!
Congratulations on your second Stockholm Embassy appointment, Citizen of Europe! I have added that information to your line on the Renounce & Relinquish database. May that CLN appear quickly in the new year.
I also hope those likely “Accidental American” siblings there at the same time as you were successful in their relinquishment!
Cheers!!
@Citizen of Europe, congratulations.
I was just wondering what are the reasons that people give for renouncing. Is it more something like “I feel like I have more ties to my country of residences and can’t really be loyal to both so I am choosing my country of residence”.
Or “the recent policies of the US make it difficult to live in my country of residence because of bank/investment discriminations. I don’t want to be discriminated against. And in addition, I can’t take the threats of life altering fines for small mistakes on my complex tax return. The US is basically forcing me to renounce.”
Both statement are probably true for most people. I was wondering if most pick the first one because they’re afraid of their application being denied or if they tell the truth to the officer.
I’ve had that conversation in my head so many times already. I think I would keep it vanilla and just say that I am seeking to reduce the complexity of my life and believe that I would therefore benefit from having only one citizenship instead of two. I’m not a citizen of the country in which I am resident so the allegiance thing doesn’t suit me. There are, of course, lots of other things that I would be tempted to say. Unfortunately, none of them would be appropriate for an official conversation with a consular representative.
@Christophe,
Regarding a person’s reason, the forms used for renunciation don’t ask for a reason. So, a written reason is definitely not required. (A person renouncing can append a written statement if they want to. I think very few people do. I also think it’s best not to.)
They’re not required to ask for your reason when you’re there, but it seems that some do. If they ask, I think some consulate officers may actually just be curious, either personally and/or gathering general information for the consulate on the collective “mood” of local renouncers in general. Of course, some consulate officers may be jerks, fortunately we’re not running into very many of those and keeping you as apprised as we can through the Consulate Report Directory so you can go somewhere else.
I remember Rodgrod reporting on her very pleasant consulate meeting, that she was asked why and replied that she wanted to simplify her life and I remember thinking, boy, that really covers a lot of ground very succinctly.
As far as what one says at their consulate meeting, according to the DoS manual, 7 FAM 1260, the consulate officer sends a report on the person’s visit to DC along with the person’s renunciation forms.
The DOS manual refers to reporting “statements that alter the meaning of the renunciation or call into question the individual’s intent to renounce citizenship.” And “You should also report … other conduct by the individual that creates doubt that the individual intends to give up the rights and privillges of US nationality”. And “This opinion should include the consular officer’s assessment of the renunciant’s state of mind and the reasons given, if any, for desiring to renounce.”
My gut feeling is that this is not a report that the consulate officer labours over, they just want to process these things and get on with their job. And from common sense, one knows one is in an official situation,so people would tend to speak accordingly anyway. But, just FYI, they do send a report with the file.
If it comes right down to it, you can file a FOIA request for the consular officer’s report, but there’s probably no point in doing so unless you’re turned down. If you were approved, it’s almost certainly some boilerplate text to the effect that the renunciant didn’t appear to be acting under coercion, that the consequences were explained to them, and there was no basis to believe that they didn’t understand what they were doing. Behind the scenes it’s probably a custom keystroke command in Word.
@Broken Man, that’s the impression I have too. Probably short, routine and dry. The info in the 1260 about report content seems focused on situations described in the 1290, people who don’t seem to know what they’re doing, or who “behave irrationally, belligerently or otherwise unusually,” also reporting if the person made threats. I imagine occasionally they see some interesting people.
That reminds me — while I was waiting to see the consul, a guy came in *shouting* that he was here to renounce. And I thought, “Oh, boy, I’m about to hear an “irrational, belligerent” diatribe!” But it turned out he was only shouting because he was hearing-impaired.
*Congratulations, Citizen of Europe! Welcome to the club of non-Americans. We are the biggest and baddest club in the world. 🙂
@Lisa, when is the party?
@Christophe, I didn’t give a reason. Living in Switzerland is reason enough. It’s my choice and thus my situation that others don’t need to be concerned about. I don’t believe that giving a reason will change things to be any better.
@Christophe, I told them the truth, that I have lived in Europe all of my adult life, will never live or work in the United States again, and do not want to owe allegiance to a country which no longer corresponds to my identity.
@Citizen of Europe,
I think your answer is the same many of us could give, having lived so many years in another country, even though raising “Accidental Americans”. “Do not want to owe allegiance to a country which no longer corresponds to my identify” = for me, the US is no longer the country I grew up in (or thought I grew up in).
*Well, I’ve started on the path at last. Requested the necessary papers by e-mail yesterday and they’ve e-mailed them back to me. Will have a read before filling in, then hopefully make an appointment for the New Year.
Does anyone know why they bother with having swearing and affirming on the docs? They say it doesn’t make any difference, but I wondered if swearing was done on a Bible or something while affirming isn’t. I will affirm I think anyway, but I’m just curious.
I was wondering if I would have any lingering doubts or regrets after my renunciation was “official”. I don’t at all. I do seem to have the strong attachments I’ve always felt to places in the US where I grew up and to people and events. To me though, “US citizenship” just feels very “governmenty”…all about the idiotic people who put me in this mess, not the place itself.
Ha! After posting, I noticed my profile avatar…with my Michigan hat! I’ve had one since I was 13, 61 years ago, and wear it as an emblem of my roots in Saline, MI. Jeez, I crack myself up sometimes! 🙂
@ Medea, That’s exactly it and there is no effective difference. Swearing is taking an oath on a Holy Book, such as the Bible, to tell the truth or that what you’ve written is the truth. Affirming is making a solemn affirmation to tell the truth or that what you’ve written is the truth. Both have the same binding legal effect.
*@Medea, failure to swear and affirm means it does not happen.
At a wedding ceremony you remain moot when responding to the “do you take…?” qestion leaves you unmarried. Same way with renouncing, if you fail to swear and affirm what you have signed your renunciation never takes place.