I just finished reading (and writing up a post for the Flophouse to be published tomorrow) about Patrick Weil’s new book, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.
In a nutshell this book traces the evolution of American citizenship from a conditional citizenship to an unconditional one. Unconditional in what sense? As a result of a series of Supreme Court decision it is impossible today for a birthright American citizen to be forcibly denationalized (have his or her American citizenship stripped away) though it is still possible for a naturalized one to be denaturalized in very rare circumstances.
What is fascinating about Weil’s analysis is that he says that the major change in the American conception of citizenship was to change the “Who Decides.” According to Weil the Supreme Court decided that it was NOT the the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress nor the American people who get to decide – it’s the Constitution. It says so right there in the Fourteenth Amendment and that has been interpreted by U.S. courts to mean that American birthright citizenship is unconditional. Doesn’t matter if you leave the country 5 days after you were born or take on another citizenship or commit terrible acts while abroad. An American citizen’s “right to have rights” is derived from and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
So when a U.S. border agent stops someone at the border and proclaims, “You are an American citizen until we tell you otherwise,” that person is full of it. It’s not up to him or any agent of the U.S. government to say such a thing. It’s not even up to the American public unless they decide to go forth and alter the Constitution, a lengthy and complex process.
That was a revelation for me. Doesn’t address all the unintended consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment. Surely doesn’t help all those “Accidental Americans’ out there either. But if I understand Weil’s analysis correctly, it is not within the power of the U.S. government to simply declare that certain people are no longer U.S. citizens. I found that fascinating.
So here we are in a globalized era with a government which cannot denationalize citizens under any circumstances but can and does make their lives very difficult when they live outside of the United States. Citizens abroad can be killed without due process. And as we know they can also be double-taxed. I imagine as well that there are a whole host of others things the U.S. government could do if it was sufficiently motivated.
It has been suggested that the recent enforcement of citizenship-based taxation is not a roundabout attempt to get U.S. citizens to voluntarily give up their citizenship. A lot of Americans I’ve talked to in the homeland (Left and Right) seem to think that things like living in another country long-term, voting in a foreign election or marrying a foreign national should get your citizenship pulled. They can’t do that but what if we could be encouraged to go away of our own accord? I doubt it is the main reason behind citizenship-based taxation/FBARs/FATCA but perhaps America thinks that renunciations/relinquishments are a happy by-product of these things?
What do you folks think?
*”So when a U.S. border agent stops someone at the border and proclaims, “You are an American citizen until we tell you otherwise,” that person is full of it.”
Not sure I agree. He probably is correct according to the Constitution.
I see what you mean, Joe. Perhaps the most correct and precise way to put it would be, “You are a citizen until the U.S. Constitution changes OR you have a CLN. We’ll keep you advised.” 🙂
@Joe, I think the problem is in this part of the line, “Until we tell you otherwise.” The US government does not have the right to declare via fiat that a person is or is not a citizen. The State Department must only determine, on the basis of the preponderance of evidence, if the person has committed an expatriating act according to the Constitution and relevant laws. But State does not have the final say, as has been shown in the courts. A person may regain citizenship once declared lost by the State Department and presumably, a person may insist in court that he is no longer a citizen–such cases have not come up to my knowledge, but will eventually in the future if the US continues to act in such an arrogant manner.
@Peter, “a person may insist in court that he is no longer a citizen–such cases have not come up to my knowledge, but will eventually in the future if the US continues to act in such an arrogant manner.” I’m really curious what the European Court of Human Rights would say about this. As you said, if things continue as they are then it is likely non-US courts will have to make a ruling but I have no clue what they would say.
Should be: You are an American citizen until you can prove otherwise. If the issuance of a CLN is “saying so” then maybe he’s correct, because for the purposes of crossing the border, it is your only proof.
** I think Victoria is technically right when she says
What the border agent may mean is that “You are a U.S. citizen for tax purposes until we tell you otherwise.” But even then the agent is incorrect unless appropriate dates are
added.
Though I’m not a lawyer, from what I understand of the law as it has been discussed here at Brock, a more correct statement for the border agent would seem to be
“You are a U.S. citizen until you lose your citizenship by committing an intentionally expatriating act. Even so, if you committed the expatriating act since 2004, you remain a U.S. citizen for tax purposes [whatever that means constitutionally!] until you officially inform the Department of State of your loss of citizenship and settle your financial affairs to the satisfaction of the IRS.”
I would love it if border agents had to recite the full version. Maybe they could have that on a little “greeting card” that they pass out at the border.
@Anon-Anon, I’d like to see these rulings which make a person ambiguously a citizen but not, citizen for tax purposes but not for anything else, stand up in any court within the United States, though it might because whatever benefits the teat suckers on the jury is what will happen. And mind you, if it is a jury in a DC court, or a judge, they all suck from the teat of the government.
As for the CLN, it is not determine if the expatriating act has occured, it is the acknowledgement thereof. However, the fact of not being a citizen, doesn’t help you cross the damn border without the CLN. Which is the most ironic thing of all: the US will stop you from entering because you are citizen, when in fact, it is only the US citizen who has the “right” to enter the maudit country. So in any case, they are violating the Constitution. But the very fact of entering the United States with a foreign passport is itself an indication of the relinquishment, and so they should respect the wishes of the sovereign country that issued the passport, and let the person pass without hassle. To do otherwise is an insult to that country, but they don’t give a rats a– who they insult anymore.
*Petros, I agree. I don’t see how citizenship-for-tax-purposes-only could be upheld in court as constitutional. But who knows what the Supreme Court would decide on that? Anyway, the IRS seems to have unlimited powers to confiscate property belonging to “non-resident aliens”, including former citizens, if it can get its hands on such property, and U.S. courts would probably uphold those powers.
@Petros
Yes, a US birthplace does not prove you are a US citizen and a person with a Canadian passport with a US birthplace alone isn’t proof that they aren’t American, unless of course an American using a foreign passport was proof of expatriation. I wish it was that easy, I’d save $450. But then it there would be those who unwittingly crossed the border who did not intend to relinquish who’d squawk that their US citizenship was arbitrarily revoked by the US government.
@All
I think that answer is this:
The government cannot decide who you are (only you an decide that in the sense of citizen or not).
The government can decide (if you are a citizen) what you must do.
(One problem with U.S. law is that that “citizen” might mean one thing under the constitution and another for the purposes of taxation. For example one can lose a Green Card for purposes of immigration but still be a Green Card Holder for the purposes of tax.)
Clearly the constitution (14th amendment) plays a major role in determining citizenship (those born and those naturalized). It is important to remember that when citizenship is granted/guaranteed by the constitution that government is limited in “taking it away”. A primary purpose of the 14th amendment is to protect people from government. Citizenship is an important right. But in most cases it is a right that is granted to the citizen by the constitution. “U.S. citizenship” (if derived from the constitution) is a right granted to the citizen. The citizen has the right to retain U.S. citizenship or to relinquish U.S. citizenship. This means only that citizenship is a right granted by the constitution to the citizen – the citizen – and the citizen alone – can then decide whether to retain it or relinquish it. In other words, the question of relinquishment is an “incident of citizenship itself”. It is NOT something the government can decide. (Unless citizenship is slavery)
This is a different issue from:
– Assuming one is a U.S. citizen what obligations can the government impose on you?
– Assuming you want to relinquish, can the government control the manner of relinquishment?
These issues have been discussed for a number of years. In order to glean a large view of the issues here, I suggest reading the majority decision of Justice Black in the Afroyim case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/253#writing-USSC_CR_0387_0253_ZO
He traces the history of the issue. The decision is based on the facts of the case and is:
If a person’s citizenship comes from being either born or naturalized in the U.S., then the government cannot take that person’s citizenship without his consent.
The case also confirms that a citizen has a right to relinquish his citizenship (although this is not necessary to justify the majority decision.)
Now, what does this mean? Here is what I think:
On the issue of who is a U.S. citizen:
1. If one is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (which should be a separate post) then one is a U.S. citizen. The government can’t take it away.
2. If one is naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (again whatever “jurisdiction” means) then one is a U.S. citizen. The government can’t take it away. But the government can prescribe rules for naturalization.
3. The government can regulate “who is a U.S. citizen” when one is neither born in nor naturalized (example U.S. citizens born abroad to U.S. parents).
On the issue of relinquishment:
4. U.S. citizens do have the right to relinquish U.S. citizenship. What is NOT clear to me is how far the government can go in regulating this. Remember that for 14th amendment citizens the government can’t take away citizenship. I would argue that the government cannot unduly burden the right to relinquish. (In fact anything that goes beyond just confirming intention/voluntariness may be problematic). Question: Would a 2 year wait to renounce burden the right to relinquish in an unconstitutional manner?
The right to relinquish is NOT something granted by government but an “incident of citizenship”.
We know that the U.S. makes it very difficult to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Perhaps they are making it unconstitutionally too hard. It would be interesting to see how other countries deal with the question of expatriation.
On the issue of obligations of U.S. citizens:
Remember that WHO you are is different from WHAT you can/must do.
5. Can the government tax U.S. citizens abroad? There is probably nothing in the constitution that would prohibit this. That said, there is nothing about Cook v. Tait that could be used to justify the constitutionality of citizenship-based taxation.
To put it another way: The fact that Cook v. Tait cannot possibly justify the constitutionality of citizenship-based taxation doesn’t mean that it is not constitutional.
Anyway, I think we need to distinguish the “Who you are question” from the “What you must do question”.
Here is the text of Justice Black’s decision. The history is very interesting.
Supreme Court
Beys AFROYIM, Petitioner, v. Dean RUSK, Secretary of State.
387 U.S. 253
Afroyim v. Rusk (No. 456)
Argued: February 20, 1967
Decided: May 29, 1967
___
Syllabus
Petitioner, of Polish birth, became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950, and in 1951 voted in an Israeli legislative election. The State Department subsequently refused to renew his passport, maintaining that petitioner had lost his citizenship by virtue of § 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provides that a United States citizen shall “lose” his citizenship if he votes in a foreign political election. Petitioner then brought this declaratory judgment action alleging the unconstitutionality of § 401(e). On the basis of Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that Congress, under its implied power to regulate foreign affairs, can strip an American citizen of his citizenship.
Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra,overruled. Pp. 256-268.
(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .” completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 262-268.
361 F.2d 102, reversed. [p254]
TOP
Opinion
BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, born in Poland in 1893, immigrated to this country in 1912 and became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950, and in 1951, he voluntarily voted in an election for the Israeli Knesset, the legislative body of Israel. In 1960, when he applied for renewal of his United States passport, the Department of State refused to grant it on the sole ground that he had lost his American citizenship by virtue of § 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which provides that a United States citizen shall “lose” his citizenship if he votes “in a political election in a foreign state.” [n1] Petitioner then brought this declaratory judgment action in federal district court alleging that § 401(e) violates both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and § 1, cl. 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, [n2] which grants American citizenship to persons like petitioner. Because neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to [p255] take away that citizenship once it has been acquired, petitioner contended that the only way he could lose his citizenship was by his own voluntary renunciation of it. Since the Government took the position that § 401(e) empowers it to terminate citizenship without the citizen’s voluntary renunciation, petitioner argued that this section is prohibited by the Constitution. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, rejecting this argument, held that Congress has constitutional authority forcibly to take away citizenship for voting in a foreign country based on its implied power to regulate foreign affairs. Consequently, petitioner was held to have lost his American citizenship regardless of his intention not to give it up. This is precisely what this Court held in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44.
Petitioner, relying on the same contentions about voluntary renunciation of citizenship which this Court rejected in upholding § 401(e) in Perez, urges us to reconsider that case, adopt the view of the minority there, and overrule it. That case, decided by a 5-4 vote almost 10 years ago, has been a source of controversy and confusion ever since, as was emphatically recognized in the opinions of all the judges who participated in this case below. [n3] Moreover, in the other cases decided with [n4] and since [n5] Perez, this Court has consistently invalidated on a case-by-case basis various other statutory sections providing for involuntary expatriation. It has done so on various grounds, and has refused to hold that citizens can be expatriated without their voluntary renunciation of [p256]citizenship. These cases, as well as many commentators, [n6] have cast great doubt upon the soundness of Perez. Under these circumstances, we granted certiorari to reconsider it,385 U.S. 917. In view of the many recent opinions and dissents comprehensively discussing all the issues involved, [n7] we deem it unnecessary to treat this subject at great length.
The fundamental issue before this Court here, as it was in Perez, is whether Congress can, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up. The majority in Perezheld that Congress could do this because withdrawal of citizenship is “reasonably calculated to effect the end that is within the power of Congress to achieve.” 356 U.S. at 60. That conclusion was reached by this chain of reasoning: Congress has an implied power to deal with foreign affairs as an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; this implied power, plus the Necessary and Proper Clause, empowers Congress to regulate voting by American citizens in foreign elections; involuntary expatriation is within the “ample scope” of “appropriate modes” Congress can adopt to effectuate its general regulatory power. Id.at [p257] 57-60. Then, upon summarily concluding that
there is nothing in the . . . Fourteenth Amendment to warrant drawing from it a restriction upon the power otherwise possessed by Congress to withdraw citizenship,
id. at 58, n. 3, the majority specifically rejected the “notion that the power of Congress to terminate citizenship depends upon the citizen’s assent,” id. at 61.
First, we reject the idea expressed in Perez that, aside from the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent. This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. Other nations are governed by their own constitutions, if any, and we can draw no support from theirs. In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether, in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power. And even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, views were expressed in Congress and by this Court that, under the Constitution the Government was granted no power, even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization, to determine what conduct should and should not result in the loss of citizenship. On three occasions, in 1794, 1797, and 1818, Congress considered and rejected proposals to enact laws which would describe certain conduct as resulting in expatriation. [n8] On each occasion [p258] Congress was considering bills that were concerned with recognizing the right of voluntary expatriation and with providing some means of exercising that right. In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. [n9] By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation, but several judicial decisions had indicated that the right could not be exercised by the citizen without the consent of the Federal Government in the form of enabling legislation. [n10] Therefore, a bill was introduced to provide that a person could voluntarily relinquish his citizenship by declaring such relinquishment in writing before a district court and then departing from the country. [n11] The opponents of the bill argued that Congress had no constitutional authority, either express or implied, under either the Naturalization Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, to provide that a certain act would constitute expatriation.[n12] They pointed to a proposed Thirteenth [p259] Amendment, subsequently not ratified, which would have provided that a person would lose his citizenship by accepting an office or emolument from a foreign government. [n13] Congressman Anderson of Kentucky argued:
The introduction of this article declares the opinion . . . that Congress could not declare the acts which should amount to a renunciation of citizenship; otherwise there would have been no necessity for this last resort. When it was settled that Congress could not declare that the acceptance of a pension or an office from a foreign Emperor amounted to a disfranchisement of the citizen, it must surely be conceded that they could not declare that any other act did. The cases to which their powers before this amendment confessedly did not extend are very strong, and induce a belief that Congress could not in any case declare the acts which should cause “a person to cease to be a citizen.” The want of power in a case like this, where the individual has given the strongest evidence of attachment to a foreign potentate and an entire renunciation of the feelings and principles of an American citizen, certainly establishes the absence of all power to pass a bill like the present one. Although the intention with which it was introduced, and the title of the bill declare that it is to insure and foster the right of the citizen, the direct and inevitable effect of the bill, is an assumption of power by Congress to declare that certain acts when committed shall amount to a renunciation of citizenship.
31 Annals of Cong. 1038-1039 (1818). [p260] Congressman Pindall of Virginia rejected the notion, later accepted by the majority in Perez, that the nature of sovereignty gives Congress a right to expatriate citizens:
[A]llegiance imports an obligation on the citizen or subject, the correlative right to which resides in the sovereign power: allegiance in this country is not due to Congress, but to the people, with whom the sovereign power is found; it is, therefore, by the people only that any alteration can be made of the existing institutions with respect to allegiance.
Id. at 1045. Although he recognized that the bill merely sought to provide a means of voluntary expatriation, Congressman Lowndes of South Carolina argued:
But, if the Constitution had intended to give to Congress so delicate a power, it would have been expressly granted. That it was a delicate power, and ought not to be loosely inferred, . . . appeared in a strong light, when it was said, and could not be denied, that to determine the manner in which a citizen may relinquish his right of citizenship, is equivalent to determining how he shall be divested of that right. The effect of assuming the exercise of these powers will be, that, by acts of Congress a man may not only be released from all the liabilities, but from all the privileges of a citizen. If you pass this bill, . . . you have only one step further to go, and say that such and such acts shall be considered as presumption of the intention of the citizen to expatriate, and thus take from him the privileges of a citizen. . . . [Q]uestions affecting the right of the citizen were questions to be regulated, not by the laws of the General or State Governments, but by Constitutional provisions. If there was anything [p261] essential to our notion of a Constitution, . . . it was this: that, while the employment of the physical force of the country is in the hands of the Legislature, those rules which determine what constitutes the rights of the citizen, shall be a matter of Constitutional provision.
Id. at 1050-1051. The bill was finally defeated. [n14] It is in this setting that six years later, in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, declared in what appears to be a mature and well considered dictum that Congress, once a person becomes a citizen, cannot deprive him of that status:
[The naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.
Although these legislative and judicial statements may be regarded as inconclusive and must be considered in the historical context in which they were made, [n15] any doubt[p262] as to whether prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment Congress had the power to deprive a person against his will of citizenship, once obtained, should have been removed by the unequivocal terms of the Amendment itself. It provides its own constitutional rule in language calculated completely to control the status of citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States. . . .” There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.
It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. The Dred Scott decision, 19 How. 393, had shortly before greatly disturbed many people about the status of Negro citizenship. But the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, had already attempted to confer citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Nevertheless, when the Fourteenth Amendment passed the House without containing any definition of citizenship, the sponsors of the Amendment in the Senate insisted on inserting a constitutional definition and grant of citizenship. They expressed fears that the citizenship so recently conferred on Negroes by the Civil Rights Act could be just as easily taken away from them by subsequent Congresses, and it was to provide an insuperable obstacle against every governmental effort to strip Negroes of their newly acquired citizenship that the first clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment. [n16] [p263]Senator Howard, who sponsored the Amendment in the Senate, thus explained the purpose of the clause:
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. . . . We desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens . . . under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power. . . .
Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2890, 2896 (1866).
This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted. Though the framers of the Amendment were not particularly concerned with the problem of expatriation, it seems undeniable from the language they used that they wanted to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy. In 1868, two years after the Fourteenth Amendment had been proposed, Congress specifically considered the subject of expatriation. Several bills were introduced to impose involuntary expatriation on citizens who committed certain acts. [n17] With little [p264] discussion, these proposals were defeated. Other bills, like the one proposed but defeated in 1818, provided merely a means by which the citizen could himself voluntarily renounce his citizenship. [n18]Representative Van Trump of Ohio, who proposed such a bill, vehemently denied in supporting it that his measure would make the Government
a party to the act dissolving the tie between the citizen and his country . . . where the statute simply prescribes the manner in which the citizen shall proceed to perpetuate the evidence of his intention, or election, to renounce his citizenship by expatriation.
Cong.Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1804 (1868). He insisted that “inasmuch as the act of expatriation depends almost entirely upon a question of intention on the part of the citizen,” id. at 1801,
the true question is, that not only the right of expatriation, but the whole power of its exercise, rests solely and exclusively in the will of the individual,
id. at 1804. [n19] In strongest of terms, not contradicted by any during the debates, he concluded:
To enforce expatriation or exile against a citizen without his consent is not a power anywhere belonging to this Government. No conservative-minded [p265] statesman, no intelligent legislator, no sound lawyer has ever maintained any such power in any branch of the Government. The lawless precedents created in the delirium of war . . . of sending men by force into exile, as a punishment for political opinion, were violations of this great law . . . of the Constitution. . . . The men who debated the question in 1818 failed to see the true distinction. . . . They failed to comprehend that it is not the Government, but that it is the individual, who has the right and the only power of expatriation. . . . [I]t belongs and appertains to the citizen, and not to the Government, and it is the evidence of his election to exercise his right, and not the power to control either the election or the right itself, which is the legitimate subject matter of legislation. There has been, and there can be, no legislation under our Constitution to control in any manner the right itself.
Ibid. But even Van Trump’s proposal, which went no further than to provide a means of evidencing a citizen’s intent to renounce his citizenship, was defeated. [n20] The Act,[p266] as finally passed, merely recognized the “right of expatriation” as an inherent right of all people. [n21]
The entire legislative history of the 1868 Act makes it abundantly clear that there was a strong feeling in the Congress that the only way the citizenship it conferred could be lost was by the voluntary renunciation or abandonment by the citizen himself. And this was the unequivocal statement of the Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. The issues in that case were whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that, within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that, though he might “renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country,” he had never done so. Id. at 704-705. The Court then held [n22] that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall’s well considered and oft-repeated dictum in Osborn to the effect that Congress, under the power of naturalization, has “a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away,” the Court said:
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act . . . of Congress . . . [p267] can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
Id. at 703.
To uphold Congress’ power to take away a man’s citizenship because he voted in a foreign election in violation of § 401(e) would be equivalent to holding that Congress has the power to “abridge,” “affect,” “restrict the effect of,” and “take . . . away” citizenship. Because the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from doing any of these things, we agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent in the Perez case that the Government is without power to rob a citizen of his citizenship under § 401(e). [n23]
Because the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the expatriation proposals which preceded and followed it, like most other legislative history, contains many statements from which conflicting inferences can be drawn, our holding might be unwarranted if it rested entirely or principally upon that legislative history. But it does not. Our holding, we think, is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and our construction of that Amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than Perez with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee. Citizenship is no light trifle [p268] to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world — as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a cooperative affair. Its citizenry is the country, and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.
Perez v. Brownell is overruled. The judgment is
Reversed.
1. 54 Stat. 1168, as amended, 58 Stat. 746, 8 U.S.C. § 801 (1946 ed.):
A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
* * * *
(e) Voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory.
This provision was reenacted as § 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 267, 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5).
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .”
3. 250 F.Supp. 686; 361 F.2d 102, 105.
4. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86; Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129.
5. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144; Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163. In his concurring opinion in Mendoza-Martinez, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN expressed “felt doubts of the correctness of Perez. . . .” 372 U.S. at 187
6. See, e.g., Agata, Involuntary Expatriation and Schneider v. Rusk, 27 U.Pitt.L.Rev. 1 (1965); Hurst, Can Congress Take Away Citizenship?, 29 Rocky Mt.L.Rev. 62 (1956); Kurland, Foreword: “Equal in Origin and Equal in Title to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government,” 78 Harv.L.Rev. 143, 169-175 (1964); Comment, 56 Mich.L.Rev. 1142 (1958); Note, Forfeiture of Citizenship Through Congressional Enactments, 21 U.Cin.L.Rev. 59 (1952); 40 Cornell L.Q. 365 (1955); 25 S.Cal.L.Rev.196 (1952). But see, e.g., Comment, The Expatriation Act of 1954, 64 Yale L.J. 1164 (1955).
7. See Perez v. Brownell, supra, at 62 (dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE), 79 (dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS); Trop v. Dulles, supra, at 91-93 (part I of opinion of Court); Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra, at 138 (concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK).
8. For a history of the early American view of the right of expatriation, including these congressional proposals, see generally Roche, The Early Development of United States Citizenship (1949); Tsiang, The Question of Expatriation in America Prior to 1907 (1942); Dutcher, The Right of Expatriation, 11 Am.L.Rev. 447 (1877); Roche, The Loss of American Nationality — The Development of Statutory Expatriation, 99 U.Pa.L.Rev. 25 (1950); Slaymaker, The Right of the American Citizen to Expatriate, 37 Am.L.Rev.191 (1903).
9. 4 Annals of Cong. 1005, 102-1030 (1794); 7 Annals of Cong. 349 et seq. (1797).
10. See, e.g., Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dall. 133.
11. 31 Annals of Cong. 495 (1817).
12. Id. at 1036-1037, 1058 (1818). Although some of the opponents, believing that citizenship was derived from the States, argued that any power to prescribe the mode for its relinquishment rested in the States, they were careful to point out that “the absence of all power from the State Legislatures would not vest it in us.” Id. at 1039.
13. The amendment had been proposed by the 11th Cong., 2d Sess. See The Constitution of the United States of America, S.Doc. No. 39, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 77-78 (1964).
14. Id. at 1071. It is interesting to note that the proponents of the bill, such as Congressman Cobb of Georgia, considered it to be “the simple declaration of the manner in which a voluntary act, in the exercise of a natural right, may be performed” and denied that it created or could lead to the creation of “a presumption of relinquishment of the right of citizenship.” Id. at 1068.
15. The dissenting opinion here points to the fact that a Civil War Congress passed two Acts designed to deprive military deserters to the Southern side of the rights of citizenship. Measures of this kind passed in those days of emotional stress and hostility are by no means the most reliable criteria for determining what the Constitution means.
16. Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2768-2769, 2869, 2890 et seq. (1866). See generally, Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).
17. Representative Jenckes of Rhode Island introduced an amendment that would expatriate those citizens who became naturalized by a foreign government, performed public duties for a foreign government, or took up domicile in a foreign country without intent to return. Cong.Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 968, 1129, 2311 (1868). Although he characterized his proposal as covering “cases where citizens may voluntarily renounce their allegiance to this country,” id. at 1159, it was opposed by Representative Chanler of New York, who said,
So long as a citizen does not expressly dissolve his allegiance and does not swear allegiance to another country his citizenship remains in statu quo, unaltered and unimpaired.
Id. at 1016.
18. Proposals of Representatives Pruyn of New York (id. at 1130) and Van Trump of Ohio (id. at 1801, 2311).
19. While Van Trump disagreed with the 1818 opponents as to whether Congress had power to prescribe a means of voluntary renunciation of citizenship, he wholeheartedly agreed with their premise that the right of expatriation belongs to the citizen, not to the Government, and that the Constitution forbids the Government from being party to the act of expatriation. Van Trump simply thought that the opponents of the 1818 proposal failed to recognize that their mutual premise would not be violated by an Act which merely prescribed “how . . . [the rights of citizenship] might be relinquished at the option of the person in whom they were vested.” Cong.Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1804 (1868).
20. Id. at 2317. Representative Banks of Massachusetts, the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs which drafted the bill eventually enacted into law, explained why Congress refrained from providing a means of expatriation:
It is a subject which, in our opinion, ought not to be legislated upon. . . . [T]his comes within the scope and character of natural rights which no Government has the right to control and which no Government can confer. And wherever this subject is alluded to in the Constitution — . . . it is in the declaration that Congress shall have no power whatever to legislate upon these matters.
Id. at 2316.
21. 15 Stat. 223, R.S. § 1999.
22. Some have referred to this part. of the decision as a holding, see, e.g., Hurst, supra, 29 Rocky Mt.L.Rev. at 779; Comment, 56 Mich.L.Rev. at 1153-1154; while others have referred to it as obiter dictum, see, e.g., Roche, supra, 99 U.Pa.L.Rev. at 26-27. Whichever it was, the statement was evidently the result of serious consideration, and is entitled to great weight.
23. Of course, as THE CHIEF JUSTICE said in his dissent, 356 U.S. at 66, naturalization unlawfully procured can be set aside. See, e.g., Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654;Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118.
Re “perhaps America thinks that renunciations/relinquishments are a happy by-product of these things?”
I would think that most Americans haven’t really given it a serious thought. When faced with the announcement that someone has, they have a visceral “non thinking” reaction. They don’t like it, thus the many “don’t let the door hit you” comments we see.
It is uncomfortable for them to consider, wrapped up in a life long belief system of expectionalism. It confronts them, and forces a twinge of doubt into their brain and makes them think what it means to be “American” . How could someone give it up? That is not a subject that people like to confront. It is uncomfortable.
It is a bit like those of us who come face to face with the doubts of the religious orthodoxy we were raised to believe, and find ourselves no longer believing it. Uncomfortable considerations many would rather not have. You submerge the doubt, or maybe continue with the ritual participation without thinking about it too much, or as the Book of Morman Song said, you “Turn it off” a neat little Mormon trick. Confronting head on or Renouncing of a belief long held, hummm…. that is harder to do.
Frankly, when it comes to U.S. citizenship, it was something I never considered prior 2009, so I put myself in that group.
*Well, I was born as a dual citizen, viewed myself as being a patriot of both nations, always wanted the best for both nations, served in their military or social service, paid taxes, obeyed the laws and viewed such as being a part of my life, or who I was, for 40 years. Last year, all of that changed. The country where I did not live caused problems for me in the country where I lived (for no logical reason) and thus I had to draw the line and cut ties, favoring where I lived over where I did not live. If the same situation happened while I was living in the US, then I would have renounced Swiss citizenship instead of US citizenship. In my view, it is perfectly acceptable to love two or more nations and to act in their best interests, as long as the country where one does not live respects that one complies with the customs and culture where one lives (one must integrate and assimilate). In my view, nations benefit more when their citizens are free to work and travel around the world, while “citizenship pulling” takes a nation back into the middle ages. I’ve always prided myself in dialog and negotiations with opponents of multi-citizenship, but must now submit that they gained what they wanted as far as the US is concerned. Victory to them, but not at my loss!
The USG’s right to regulate relinquishment in a manner that is burdensome is something we can’t really know until someone tests it in the court system there and who is going to do that? Even having to take it to the court is a burden but the Supreme Court right now reads the law and the constitution in such a partisan manner that I have my doubts that the outcome would favor the average person relinquishing/renouncing over the USG’s right to retain ownership of it’s property aka citizens.
*There have been many articles printed in the Pakistani press on dual citizenship over the past few months. I didn’t read them, though, yet another article came out again yesterday and so I thought that it might be of interest here. Here is a clipping from it:
Other countries around the world appreciate the fact that expats send money to their families. The US might find itself in a situation like that someday too.
@UScitizenabroad, Thanks for the links. Weil talks about those cases. For info he is a researcher at CNRS in France and is a guest professor at an American university. His work is always good. Not sure about this part of you comment:
The government cannot decide who you are (only you an decide that in the sense of citizen or not).
Under international law nations seems to have agreed to let each nation decide for itself who is a citizen. How the individual feels about is not addressed. Are there cases for example at the ECHR where there was some dispute about this and where an individual sought to disconnect from a nation-state and had to go to court to make it stick?
@Just Me, Yes, and I think that reaction is not confined to Americans. The French don’t care for it either. It does call into question the worth of a particular citizenship. I think we can see in the debates about immigration some of the underlying beliefs that people hold about citizenship – when it should be conferred and when it should be revoked. The ongoing (never-ending it seems) discussion in the US about citizenship for the children of undocumented people is a case in point. It keeps coming up because many people think that an system of unqualified jus soli is NOT okay and they want to see it changed. The debate is framed around those “anchor babies” but if you asked them, for example, should my French neighbor born in the US who left as a toddler should be a US citizen, the answer very often is, “Of course not.” Would they be happy if there was a system that revoked that citizenship if it were not activated? I think so. But they can’t do that. So getting them to give up their claim voluntarily has some appeal.
@SwissPiney, Oh thanks for the link. That’s a good one. Yeah, countries of migration figured out long along that allowing their citizens to retain their nationality is good for them. Developped nations also see their interest there. I’ve met French/US citizens here in France who headed off to the US in their youth and then came back when they got older. Many of them got US citizenship just prior to leaving. In fact, I think you could almost say that they got US citizenship because they were planning to leave. It means that they can always go back to the US no matter what. No more Green Cards, no more hassle.
Of course they didn’t take into account citizenship-based taxation. I’ve heard from people who really regret having become US citizens. My husband is thanking his lucky stars that he didn’t do it before we left the US.
@Swisspinoy, I totally agree with your post of January 14, 2013 at 3:47pm.
Dual citizen can see themselves as patriots of both nations. There are a lot of things that I like in both my country of origin and the US where I live, and I would like to take the US citizenship, because this is where I live. The reason why I did not naturalize yet, is the very strong wording of the oath:
“Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen”.
The article states: According to Weil the Supreme Court decided that it was NOT the the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress nor the American people who get to decide – it’s the Constitution. It says so right there in the Fourteenth Amendment and that has been interpreted by U.S. courts to mean that American birthright citizenship is unconditional. Doesn’t matter if you leave the country 5 days after you were born or take on another citizenship or commit terrible acts while abroad. An American citizen’s “right to have rights” is derived from and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Doesn’t anyone here know what year–the Decision number would also be great–the Supreme Court made this decision? A citation to this case wold be very useful to a brief arguing the unconstitutionality of CBT (as CBT creates a second class of citizen without amendment to the Constitution).
Thanks. Also, if you want to help out with fighting against CBT’s attempt to create a second class of citizen contact me at mstrunorth@gmail.com
Susan,
According to my copy of The Sovereign Citizen it was the 1967 decision Afroyim vs Rusk.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/253
(And by the way I got to meet Patrick Weil a month or so ago. I was positively giddy and I told him how much I liked his book. He said how much he liked the review of his book on my blog. It was literally one of the best moments I’ve had in a long LONG time. 🙂