8 U.S. Code S. 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth includes:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
The quest for – “Form Free Living”
The need to live "Form Free" http://t.co/jefOSLEq1b via @USCitizenAbroad – #Americansabroad seek "Form Free Living" – that's a #FATCA
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 20, 2015
Defining the direction …
Born outside US to USC parents? Is US citizenship a choice for u or has the US made you an offer you can't refuse? https://t.co/vKlKZMyGJt
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 12, 2015
This issue has been recently raised in AT LEAST the following three contexts:
1. In a fascinating post, WhiteKat introduces the issue of:
… another obvious battle to be fought, which is the fight to help set people free from the chains of unwanted US citizenship.
2. A recent comment (not restricted to the situation of people born outside the U.S.) noted that:
Facts are stubborn things. Why not focus on the those facts that are most clear
1. The United States is attempting to enforce it’s laws beyond its borders in other countries. These include but are not limited to U.S. “Extra-territorial taxation” and FATCA.
2. The United States and the United States only decides (according to its laws) who is or is not a “U.S. person” and is therefore subject to U.S. “Extra-territorial taxation”.
3. Because of point 2, the United States (with the help of the media and the tax professionals) is attempting to forcibly impose “U.S. personhood”on many who have never and do not believe that they are U.S. persons.
3. Leading to a recent comment on Facebook that:
In relation to point 3 (forcible imposition of US citizenship on people who don’t want it and who have lived their lives as nationals of another country) surely another law suit must be brewing? The more I read about US nationality laws, the more it seems to me that the State Department’s position is at odds with the fundamental principles that underpin the system. Probably one for accidental Americans. Just wondering if this has ever been given any thought.
Can the U.S. impose unwanted citizenship on people born outside the United States?
The forced imposition of U.S. citizenship on people born outside the United States arguably infringes the sovereignty of other nations. For example doesn’t Canada have the right to treat Canadian citizens as ONLY Canadian citizens?
The Government of Canada would surely have an interest in this because, the U.S., under the pretext of citizenship based taxation, is extracting Canadian capital from Canada and transferring it to the U.S. Treasury (presumably for better use). By imposing U.S. citizenship on people born in Canada, the United States is potentially harming Canada.
This is a clear violation of Canada’s sovereignty.
Possible responses from those who are threatened with the forcible imposition of U.S. citizenship:
The Government of Canada could simply echo the late Jim Flaherty by saying:
Keep your hands off our citizens.
Canadian citizens would surely have an interest in this for obvious reasons. Individual Canadian citizens would simply say:
I don’t want to be a U.S. citizen. I want to live as a free person. I want to live a “Form Free Life”.
Canadian citizens, born in Canada, might answer the question:
Sorry, but I was not born in the United States. U.S. law ends at he border. I am not and never will be a U.S. citizen. What gives the United States – “That Great Citadel of Freedom and Justice” – the right to force citizenship on those born outside the United States?
In search of an answer – what are the principles that determine how the question should be answered?
In General – Can citizenship be forced on an individual?
Citizenship Showdown Coming Between Free People and the U.S. Government | Maple Sandbox http://t.co/gIDD2sH1kN
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 20, 2015
Specifically – The curious case of those born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents
How the world has changed. President Barack Obama promised “change we can believe in”. The result of the Obama presidency is that people all over the world are now afraid of U.S. citizenship in a FATCA world. The numbers of those renouncing U.S. citizenship are increasing.
The difficult questions include:
1. Can the United States of America forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on those who were born outside the United States? There is NO other country (not even Eritrea) that is believed to forcibly impose citizenship on those born outside it’s borders.
2. Are those born outside the United States, free to interpret U.S. laws as an offer of U.S. citizenship but also be free to reject it?
What do the lawyers say? It depends who you ask.
Many lawyers inside the United States, simply read the relevant U.S. statute and say with confidence:
Yes, the United States has imposed citizenship on certain people born outside the United States. The consent of those individuals is irrelevant.
Okay, but U.S. law ends at the U.S. border. Must those born outside the United States, accept the forcible imposition of U.S. citizenship, if they are not in the United States? If they are NOT in the United States and do NOT accept an “offer” of U.S. citizenship
I explored this interesting question in: Cook v. Tait 10: Opinion – Those born outside the US, to US parents, are NOT automatically US citizens. When it comes to those born outside the U.S., it seems to me that the U.S. can specify the conditions under which it is willing to grant citizenship, but it should NOT be able to FORCE citizenship on individuals.
Cook v. Tait 10: Opinion – Those born outside the US, to US citizens, are NOT automatically US… http://t.co/fzjrTCIMZS via @USCitizenAbroad
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 20, 2015
Three recent interesting items that focus on whether those born outside the U.S. can have U.S. citizenship imposed on them
Item 1: On June 5, 2015, a U.S. D.C. Court of Appeal wrote an opinion suggesting:
"We can envision little that is more anomalous, under modern standards, than the forcible imposition of citizenshi… http://t.co/UOAumuhTHa
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 17, 2015
A post from the Isaac Brock Society introduces the issue with this question:
Can the United States be justified in imposing, without informed consent, U.S. citizenship on a group of persons, especially “never-meaningfuls”, who do not want U.S. citizenship?
It may be significant that the court is addressing the question of the imposition of citizenship on a group instead of on an individual. Nevertheless, …
The post includes some interesting quotes from the ruling:
A FEW QUOTES FROM THE RULING:
“BROWN (Senior Circuit Judge): In our constitutional republic, Justice Brandeis observed, the title of citizen is superior to the title of President. Thus, the questions “[w]ho is the citizen[?]” and “what is the meaning of the term?” Aristotle, Politics bk. 3, reprinted in part in READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55, 61 (Francis W. Coker ed., 1938), are no less than the questions of “who constitutes the sovereign state?” and “what is the meaning of statehood as an association?”
“We can envision little that is more anomalous, under modern standards, than the forcible imposition of citizenship against the majoritarian will.”
“We hold it anomalous to impose citizenship over the objections of the American Samoan people themselves, as expressed through their democratically elected representatives.”
“A republic of people “is not every group of men, associated in any manner,[it] is the coming together of . . . men who are united by common agreement . . .” [MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO]”
“See, e.g., U.N. Charter arts. 1,73 (recognizing self-determination of people as a guiding principle and obliging members to “take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples” inhabiting non-self-governing territories under a member’s responsibility); Atlantic Charter, U.S.-U.K., Aug. 14, 1941 (endorsing“respect [for] the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”); Woodrow Wilson,President, United States, Fourteen Points, Address to JointSession of Congress (Jan. 8, 1918) (“[I]n determining all []questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.”)”
“In this manner, we distinguish a republican association from the autocratic subjugation of free people. And from this, it is consequently understood that democratic “governments . . . deriv[e] their [] powers from the consent of the governed,”
“Citizenship is the effect of [a] compact[;] . . . [it] is a political tie.”
[Talbot v. Jansen]”“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the People.”
Item 2: The fascinating “video” and comments at Americansoverseas.info
IRS on the hunt for #Americansabroad https://t.co/IlMlrzfxVk – including those not born in the USA who didn't they are considered US citizen
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 10, 2015
This video describes the fascinating story of Dutch citizens, born in Holland to U.S. citizen parents. They appear to have accepted the “forced imposition of U.S. citizenship” and entered the U.S. tax system. The comments to the article, raise the question of whether the U.S. citizenship was mandatory or whether it was an offer that could be accepted.
Item 3: The Morales-Satana case reported by Eric at the Isaac Brock Society
In a superb post, Eric describes the recent decision in Morales-Santana v. Lynch, No. 11-1252-ag (2nd Cir., 2015). It’s important to recognize that Mr. Morales wanted to be a U.S. citizen. He was asking the court to provide relief for him that would him allow him to be recognized as a U.S. citizen. I reproduce my comment to his post which I believe summarizes the issues:
Can the U.S. “deem” people “born outside the U.S.” to be U.S. citizens?
@Eric
Fantastic post and fantastic comments. Thank you for this. I see this decision as being more narrow than some of the comments to your post suggest. To cut to the chase, I believe that the significance of this decision depends on whether the U.S. can “deem” people born outside the United States to be U.S. citizens.
With that question in mind …
In your superb post you describe the recent decision in Morales-Santana v. Lynch, No. 11-1252-ag (2nd Cir., 2015). It’s important to recognize that Mr. Morales wanted to be a U.S. citizen. He was asking the court to provide relief for him that would him allow him to be recognized as a U.S. citizen.
The Facts:
Morales was born, out of wedlock outside the United States to a U.S. citizen father who had NOT lived in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14. Mr. Morales mother was NOT a U.S. citizen. The law did NOT allow Mr. Morales’s father to pass citizenship to Mr. Morales because he (as the father) had not lived in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14. But, Mr. Morales could have received derivative citizenship from an unwed U.S. citizen mother who had lived in the United States for only one year. In other words, to pass citizenship, Mr. Morales’s actual unwed father would need more U.S. residence than a hypothetical unwed mother would have required.
The issue:
Did the more onerous residence requirement imposed on the father violate “equal protection”. In other words, did it deny a benefit to the actual father, that was available to a hypothetical mother, on the basis of sex? Was Mr. Morale’s father denied equal protection because he was a male?
The ruling:
To deny the benefit of being able to pass derivative citizenship to the father was a violation of equal protection. Therefore, Mr. Morales’s father should not be subject to residency requirements that were more onerous than what would have been available to a hypothetical U.S. citizen mother.
The court went further and suggested that it’s decision resulted in Morales “being a citizen from the moment of birth”. (Bear in mind that this was the result that he was asking for.) A more narrow (and I believe correct) interpretation of the ruling is that:
Mr. Morale’s unwed father had the same right to pass on derivative citizenship that a hypothetical unwed mother would have had. Unless the U.S. has the unilateral right to “deem” people born outside the U.S. to be U.S. citizens, this would mean that:
1. Mr. Morale’s father had “the right” to pass U.S. citizenship to his child.
2. Mr. Morales (the child) had the right, but not the obligation, to accept U.S. citizenship. (In this case he needed U.S. citizenship to avoid deportation.)
Why is this of interest?
Well, as the comments to Eric’s post make clear, people are concerned that this decision has retroactively created a new class of U.S. citizens abroad. This could (but not necessarily would) be true ONLY if the United States has the power to impose U.S. citizenship on a person born outside the United States. It doesn’t appear that the court addressed that specific question.
Therefore, I believe that this decision should NOT be interpreted to mean that the U.S. has created a new class of “property” outside the U.S. It just means that a new group of people are welcome to become U.S. property, if they so desire.
I would really appreciate your thoughts on this question:
Can the U.S. “deem” people “born outside the U.S.” to be U.S. citizens?
I attempted a post on this question a few years ago at:
Would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this.
The Cook v. Tait related question:
Your comments on this question would be appreciated. Can a person who was NOT born in the United States and who has never “accepted” the U.S. “offer of citizenship” (by registration, passport, etc.) be forced to accept U.S. citizenship?
Is a possible answer to the FATCA inquisition:
I have never lived under the jurisdiction of the United States. Because I have never lived under the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States has never had the right to impose U.S. citizenship on me. Furthermore, although I appreciate the offer of U.S. citizenship, I have never accepted it. Therefore, no I am not a U.S. citizen.
How would Barack Obama answer that question if it was Kenyan taxes being imposed on him? He was a dual Kenyan-American citizen until 1984 according to http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/
Just recently in the news he visited Kenya – his father’s country and spoke of his birthright and ties to Kenya;
“……President Barack Obama spoke proudly of his Kenyan heritage before a raucous and affectionate crowd in Nairobi on Sunday.
“I am proud to be the first American president to come to Kenya, and of course I’m the first Kenyan-American to be president of the United States,” he told the packed sports hall in Nairobi, to the loud cheers of over 4,500 people in the audience. It was the time he referred to himself as such. “.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-africa-im-proud-be-first-kenyan-american-president-n398571
We know that the US considers itself exceptional as per the rest of the globe and upholds; “…the presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found…” (Cook vs. Tait).
Obama just recently self-identified as a “Kenyan-American” – he is publicly expressing his belonging to the Kenyan ‘community’. According to Michael Kirsch a US guru of US extraterritorial CBT those defined as US citizens – no matter where they reside should be paying membership fees to the US via US extraterritorial taxation. Mere birth in the US apparently makes one a taxable member. So why isn’t Obama voluntarily paying up for the all the benefits he has derived from his relationship with Kenya on the basis that “….government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found…” ? He was a dual US-Kenyan citizen by birth via his father ( ” CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH A person is a citizen by birth if at the date of his or her birth; one of the parents is or was a citizen of Kenya. This is regardless of where the person is or was born….” http://www.kenyamission-un.ch/?Consular_Matters:Requirements_for_citizenship ). ) “……..until his 23rd birthday in 1984” “…….. the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.” http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/ .
That means that he should owe the Kenyan government payment for ALL THE BENEFITS HE RECEIVED from the mere existence of the Kenyan government based on his inherited Kenyan citizenship which he enjoyed from birth to age 23 in 1984. If Cook vs. Tait’s presumption holds then Obama owes the Kenyan government in principle, even if Kenyan tax law doesn’t demand it.
@USCitizenAbroad
Thank you for your thorough and important post about these questions. The particular plight of those who were not born in the US but who have been branded as US Persons needs to be better understood and appreciated for it is primarily a problem of citizenship law, and how citizenship can be transmitted, with taxation issues as a secondary consequence.
So ironic that the successful decades-old advocacy campaigns of organizations like American Citizens Abroad to make it easier to transmit US citizenship to foreign-born children is now coming back to haunt them in such a horrifying manner. What a terrible psychological burden for those parents who conferred the “gift” of US citizenship on their children, only to later learn that they might as well have exposed them to a terminal disease.
Obama would deny those born outside the US the CHOICE to be a UStaxablecitizen or not, yet he benefited greatly from Kenya’s lack of a citizenship tax and that it offered him the option to choose his citizenship by doing nothing to keep it.
Thanks for this fantastic post! Really appreciate the time and energy involved in writing it.
I actually had never watched the Dutch video nor read the comments. I like this comment:
http://www.americansoverseas.info/news/irs-on-the-hunt-for-americans-overseas#comment-2126828655
I am interested in his “do not capitulate” statement. The idea of civil disobedience crops up from time to time. With FATCA deadlines close at hand and no sign of any governments indicating non-cooperation, it would seem soon there may be more support for the idea of demonstrations, etc. I am curious how one organizes such an action. We hear all the time we should not advise people to break the law (by not filing etc) but we don’t live in the US. I am not a US Person. Can the US impose their laws upon me?
He asks the question of ‘where is the proof? ” We all know the US will claim that lies upon the person, not the US government. I cannot imagine the US being able to prove (by its own policies of conferring citizenship on those born abroad) who is a so-called citizen if one has not exercised it; i.e., no easy “paper trail” exists. At least for many accidentals (not born in the US), this should be possible if they do not wish to enter the US. We begin to hear of more accidentals in Europe-I would bet they would be more willing to take that chance now…
I guess my question is, how to mobilize a resistance as this is going to get very difficult and very, very ugly.
Perhaps it needs to get “very difficult and very, very ugly”, for the U.S. to wake up and call it a crisis.
“Can the United States of America forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on those who were born outside the United States? There is NO other country (not even Eritrea) that is believed to forcibly impose citizenship on those born outside it’s borders.”
This is not true. There are lots of countries that consider children of citizens as citizens, even if born abroad and regardless of their or their parents’ will. Yes, even Eritrea:
“Any person born to a father or a mother of Eritrean origin in Eritrea or abroad is an Eritrean national by birth.”
And your own country of Canada:
“a person is a citizen if (…) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;”
Actually this is the general case around the world. The problem is not the imposition of citizenship, it’s the imposition of the obligations of citizenship on people not living in the country. Citizenship itself is just a definition.
My understanding is that a minority of countries (30 or so including Canada and USA) grant citizenship based solely on place of birth; Eritrea is not one of them.
Several countries, again a minority (including both USA and Canada) grant citizenship based on descent.
One could argue that those with US ancestry, are in fact more ‘American’ than those born on US soil of non-US parents, but who left USA before they had a chance to assimilate.
Have you ever noticed that people get upset with the concept of ‘anchor babies’ but don’t seem to take issue with someone having citizenship through descent? I’m guessing most people feel like I do – that ancestral ties carries more weight than physical birth on soil with regard to what makes someone a ‘citizen’.
ooops…carry not carries. Yeah I know who cares really, but it is annoying to hit send and see grammar errors staring back at you. I wonder if newer versions of WordPress have an edit feature.
Just thought of another bonus of having an edit (and a DELETE) feature for idiots like moi who are afraid to look at what they posted the day after. 🙂
And with regard to: “Can the U.S. forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on anyone born outside the U.S?”, I pick “Yes. The U.S. can do what it wants”, firstly, because as far as I know, the US is the only country where conferred citizenship has reason to be considered an “imposition”, and second, because USA is the only country in the world that can use might to infer right.
“(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”
The reason that clause is necessary, and in fact the reason why that clause is insufficient, is the standard practice of most countries of the world: people born in those countries are not automatically citizens of those countries. Most countries grant citizenship to people who were born to parents who were citizens of those countries, regardless of whether the birth occurs in their homeland or not.
Some people are born stateless because the citizenships of their ancestors are not recognized by the countries that their ancestors emigrated from.
(c) is insufficient because it causes statelessness when a person is born to two US citizens who had not had a residence in the US or US possessions.
On the other hand, when a person is born with multiple citizenship, maybe because the birthplace (e.g. Canada) does give citizenship and/or because of parents’ citizenships, then the person can relinquish US citizenship. However, they’re still stuck until they reach age 18, and then they have a few short months to travel to a US embassy (hope they can afford it) and file a bunch of forms (hope they can speak English). They still get FBARed and FATCAed until then.
“There is NO other country (not even Eritrea) that is believed to forcibly impose citizenship on those born outside it’s borders.”
The former Soviet Union did in some famous cases that were discussed here recently.
However, when most countries grant citizenship to babies born abroad to citizens of those countries, it’s not usually a disadvantage, and it doesn’t have to be considered “forcing.” And anyone who doesn’t want it can renounce around age 18 without being penalized.
As far as I can tell, BOTH parents don’t have to be American citizens to transfer American citizenship to a child. As long as ONE parent is a USA citizen AND they meet the residency requirement (spend a certain amount of time in the USA before they left) the child is automatically granted USA citizenship. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Phil is right, but that’s a different clause. For the clause quoted here, there is no minimum lengh of time for the residence of one parent when both parents are US citizens.
Yes Phil, I think you are correct. My understanding is that there is no all encompassing “citizenship by descent” rule, such that of the countries which do have it, each has some sort of variation on the basic concept.
And Phil, I think some countries confer citizenship based on one’s grandparents citizenship (I think Canada might in some situations – i.e. depends on which laws were in effect when one was born, but I am not positive about that, just think I read it somewhere).
In contrast, I am pretty sure USA is not so ‘generous’ as to confer citizenship based on one’s grand parents’ citizenship.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
The chart is listed on IBS home page under ‘important information’ ‘born outside US?’
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/unitedkingdom/164203/cons-acs/transmission_tables.pdf
@WhiteKat
There are indeed certain situations where the US can grant citizenship to a minor residing outside the the homeland, based partly on a grand parent’s citizenship:
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter5.html
In these cases there are several interconnecting residency and citizenship requirements involving both parents and grandparents to confer US citizenship. There are also stringent documentation and attestation requirements to support such cases.
@Deckard,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems there’s a lot of variation of ‘citizenship by descent’ law from country to country, amongst those that have it (including Canada and the USA).
@WhiteKat, @Deckard, Yes, there is a way to obtain US citizenship through grandparents, but in this case it’s not automatic. The person must apply, show documentation, actually travel to the US, and if approved, the person is naturalized (becomes a US citizen from that point on). This is different from the case of children of US citizens born abroad (if the parents meet the US residence requirement), where they are considered US citizens since birth automatically. I suppose that many of you would like the latter case to be as the former (option to naturalize but not automatic).
I shake my head when I think that if I had been born in Eritrea rather than the USA, I would NOT be an Eritrean taxpayer, but because I was born in the USA, I am a US taxpayer. The cheese truly stands alone.
My present husband (who I married ten years ago) did not receive US citizenship from his dad who was born in North Dakota but moved with his family to Saskatchewan at the age of four. He did acquire it from his grandparents who came to the US from Finland, a generation before his dad. His dad actually died never knowing he was a US citizen. My husband’s US citizenship was all very easily *claimed* at the US Consulate in Calgary. This was a few years before I even met him — he took bad advice from a fellow working musician that he should *claim* US citizenship from his dad (though it was from his grandparents instead) in order to be able to work freely in the US and be able to play music until he faded into the sunset in a bigger music playing ground than Canada. How in the world did I ever have two husbands, one who I moved to Canada with in 1969 (who is deceased) and then another who *claimed* a US citizenship. Just what was the universe telling me?
My husband never put his US financial plan to use and he is, too, among those who have renounced US citizenship.
Come on, a few years before 10 years ago, no one could have predicted that US citizenship was going to be a disadvantage (unless he was planning to go to Iran or Cuba).
But if he hadn’t claimed US citizenship through his grandparents, he would have got it anyway from a recent court decision that was discussed in this forum, when his father’s period of US residence no longer had to be 5 years.
“Can the United States IMPOSE US citizenship on those born outside the US? ”
One of our problems is that we have become too US Centric in these arguments and I think its helpful if we swap out USA and instead lets say Fiji. I think its also helpful to do such swapping when trying to educate homelanders.
But to the original question, the answer is YES. The wording in their law under US Code is explicit with “shall be US Citizens….”
There is no application process, no certificate required.
Does one need a CLN to lose USC based on a cited relinquishing act? NO.
Does one need a Certificate Acquisition Nationality (CAN) to gain USC? NO.
The Law in both regards is explicit, in both regards Citizenship gained or lost is AUTOMATIC and self fullfilling.
Georges Son is 16 and had a brilliant idea of getting a US drivers License in an upcoming trip to see Granddad. Afterall a US drivers license is cheap and easy…..
I first explained that even though he would hold a valid non-restricted US License, that if he tried to use it in the EU he would be breaking the law, because the license would not be recognized first off because of his age. (Note that once I told him he would have to consent to pre-registration for the Draft/Selective Service in getting the license, he readily admitted the shortcoming of his youthful idea and thanked his father for wisdom that only age can provide.)
It is acknowledged as part of International Law that each state has the right to determine who its own citizens are. I am a citizen of many countries, the latest being Canada due to changes in Canadian Law that I learned here at IBS.
When people ask if I am a dual citizen I state yes…..but it is dual citizenship as granted under law. My home country does not recognize my Canadianess but it does recognize EU Citizenship as being part of and essentially equal to my national status. So I am a dual EU Citizen.
The USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Laos can grant everyone and their brother citizenship but that Citizenship will not necessarily be recognized in law.
In my home country you are either a National or an Alien. You can not be both!!! Thats the Law.
The Republic of Ireland grants Irish Citizenship to anyone that is a legit residence at birth if born anywhere on the Ireland island, which includes the northern counties. The USA could pass a law granting USC to anyone born in the Americas, but if the USA did that would it be recognized?
I am a firm believer that you can not exercise the rights of Citizenship simultaneously in the case of more than one. You can NOT be half German and half Irish!!!
Let me be King Solomon for the moment. Lets assume we have someone who is Dual Canadian/USA. We know that a USC MUST have a visa to be a permanent resident in Canada but the so called dual half/half person does not have a visa!!! How do we solve the dilema of this dual national who is partly an illegal migrant? We cut them in half and deport the US half across the border.
Conclusion? The USA may create laws that creates a USC, but it is likely of no consequence outside their territory.
As has been stated in other comments, the burden is on others to prove and claim that one is a USC.
I don’t understand how my present husband could have claimed US citizenship from his parent (father who left the US / North Dakota with his family at the age of four, never to again live in the US).
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter5.html
@Calgary411, that section of the law I BELIEVE is in the last twenty years a product of ACA lobbying.
With respect to your husband……..there may have been some winking and nodding when the paperwork was a spinning.