Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two
Ask your questions about Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship and Certificates of Loss of Nationality.
Participants will need to provide their e-mail address (real or fake) and an alias. The only written rule is that participants must use a same alias each time they post (and not “anonymous” or derivatives thereof).
Bear in mind that any responses that you get from participants is peer-to-peer help, and it is not intended as a replacement for professional advice. Also, the Isaac Brock Society provides this disclaimer: neither the Society nor any of its members are professionals. We offer our advice here only in friendship and we recommend that our readers seek professional advice if they need it.
If you wish to receive an e-mail notification of comments, check the box to that effect when making your first comment.
NB: This discussion is a continuation of an older discussion that became too large for our software to handle well. See Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part One
@Benedict Arnold, I’m not au fait with Canadian law, but I would have thought if you had been dual from birth you wouldn’t have needed to be naturalised at 10. My British parents registered my birth with our nearest British embassy in the US shortly after I was born and they issued me with a British birth certificate which I have along with my US one. So I was a dual US/British citizen from birth. It may be that your mother needed to do the same for you but didn’t, which is why you naturalised at 10.
@TrueNorth, that’s an interesting fact and would have applied to me. But don’t forget it would have been annulled by the simple procedure of applying for a US passport which is what I was using for travel at that time, having moved to the UK in 1968. It was a long time ago so memories are fuzzy, but I don’t remember anyone telling me or my mother that I was in danger of losing my citizenship when I renewed my US passport and we used to do that in person at the embassy in London. I do remember my mother being worried that I might lose it if I applied for a British passport and the Americans found out about it though and that was in the 70s so that law wasn’t well known by the general public. But back then so few Americans travelled outside the country so it’s not surprising.
@children born abroad of a USC parent. According to this, they are NOT automatically USCs.
Note that a grandchild can “inherit” USC from a grandparent, if the parent does not meet the physical presence requirement….so if you are a grandmama/grandpapa and think your grandchild might want a gift…. 🙁
For further reading: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5200.html#9
This law is from 2000, what the law was before I don’t know.
Section 322: Children Born and Residing Outside of the United States; Conditions for Acquiring Certificate of Citizenship
Another section of the Child Citizenship Act provides that children (biological or adopted) of U.S. citizens who are born and reside abroad, and who do not become U.S. citizens at birth can apply to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services for a Certificate of Citizenship if the following conditions are met.
•At least one parent of the child is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization;
•The U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States for a total of at least five years, at least two of which are after the age of 14. If the child’s U.S. citizen parent cannot meet the physical presence requirement, one of the child’s U.S. citizen grandparents can meet it.
•The child is under the age of eighteen;.
•The child lives abroad in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent and has been lawfully admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant.
•If the child is an orphan, the adoption must be finalized.
Children who acquire citizenship under this new provision do not acquire citizenship automatically. They must apply to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services for a Certificate of Citizenship by completing form N-600K and remitting the necessary filing fee. The form may be submitted to any field office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and may be obtained by going to http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem and entering N-600K in the search box.
@allou
Re “gifts” to grandchildren – a good friend of mine and many other people in (my previous country of residence) did just that to give their grandchildren “precious” US citizenship. 🙁
Don’t know what they think of it now – actually I don’t think the penny dropped there yet…
There is no “edit” for you, unfortunately, TrueNorth until an administrator sees it. I’ve made the change for you.
@Medea Fleecestealer
Thank you
I now see the difference…I was confusing Dual National with Dual Citizenship…
@Benedict Arnold – Yes and that is why you may have a chance to relinquish (Canadian citizenship with the intention to lose the US one) and I could only renounce. Assuming you even need to in the first place.
Hello to all, while I have recently been keeping up on this situation via this wonderful site – this is my first post.
@WhatamI, my story is very much like yours. I was born in 1959 to Canadian parents – who brought me home in 1961. All of my siblings are Canadian. My mother (my parents are gone now) always told me I was classified as a “Canadian born abroad” and because being dual was not allowed, she renounced my US citizenship. I’m not a traveler, so getting my passport was always on the to do list, until of course 2011. During that process, I discovered there was no record of my RBA (the gal at Immigration Canada told me not to worry, I was Canadian, and sometimes documents get lost.) so I had to apply for a citizenship certificate. Was that act enough to lose my US citizenship? And was it possible for my mom to renounce for me in 1959? I’ve not been able to find the answer online.
I have been thinking about renouncing my citizenship for years and it has been one of the most stressful decisions to make. I am afraid of two consequences on the basis of renouncement:
1. Can they bar from me entering the US as a Canadian citizen who has renounced my US citizenship? How long can you travel to the US for? Can you go often?
2. Can they prevent from you working in the US in the future? (I realize you would have to get a work VISA etc).
@CanadianGirl
Welcome!
I must say I know very little for sure, but the following might help.
You said “because being dual was not allowed, she renounced my US citizenship”. Do you know what she did? I’ve seen it written in more than one place that it was/is “very difficult” for a minor to renounce, or for a parent to renounce for a minor. Do you know what she did exactly? To renounce, she would have to have visited a US consulate here in Canada. Could that have happened?
I think back in the 60’s a parent had to apply for a RBA shortly after birth. My mother didn’t. She applied the night we crossed the border in 1966 and my RBA is dated 4 months later. Since 2009, it seems you can get it at any time. You have your citizen certificate, which should be just as good.
Applying for the citizenship certificate is not the same as “getting citizenship” (naturalizing). It’s just a document to prove the citizenship you already have. I doubt it helps your case any.
If you have seen us talking about INA 350 lately, I fear you may be too young to claim that. There is something in INA 349 about minors renouncing. I don’t understand it yet, but I think it applies to people who were naturalized (like @Benedict), but maybe not you or me.
@Joe Almond, no technically they can’t bar you from entering the States. Nor technically can they bar you from applying for a visa to work there in future. But there have been cases of people being turned back at the border occasionally despite the law. And there are some in Congress who want to bar expatriates from ever returning to the US again so the law may change in the future.
How often you could return/stay for would depend on whether you qualify as a covered expatriate or not:
http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8854/ar01.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20120719031309/http://renunciationguide.com/Exit-Tax-on-Renunciants.html
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/06/03/canadian-snowbirds-could-face-us-tax-servitude/
@WhatamI
Thanks very much for your reply. I have been trying to catch up and read all the info posted here (head still spinning) and this jumped out from @Benedict:
As I suggested to @WhatAmI – the 1952 INA act refers to actions taken by a parent on behalf of a minor…
Could you elaborate or point me in the right direction?
@CanadianGirl
Here are my links…for the 1952 INA Act
It is my belief that acts prior to 1986 ( or Oct 10, 1978) are subject to the rules in effect at the time…and should be considered in that light…(that Oct 10, 1978 is the more problematic rule which I don’t fully comprehend as to it’s scope, which is what is causing the debates between WhatAmI and myself)
Section 349(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (of 1952) reads as follows:
“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by –
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: PROVIDED, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday:…”
see a reference link:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/1952_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_66Statxx_TitleIII_Chapter3.pdf
also look at letter submitted by Petros and Ladybug dated 1980 –
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/02/23/letter-from-consulate-general-july-25-1980/
@CanadianGirl
As @Benedict says, we’re finding all these references but having a hard time interpreting them, and of course it’s impossible to know how the these rules and arguments will be received when we try to use them for back-dated CLNs.
Grab a copy of this document:
http://www.ctf.ca/ctfweb/EN/Publications/CTJ_Contents/2013CTJ1.aspx
I haven’t read it all, but this caught my eye on page 18:
However, I’m unable to find the reference in the FAM:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/
I see these statements in the FAM, but this is the current FAM, not as it was written back in the 60’s:
From INA 349:
I don’t think we’ve found the text of “Former subsection (b). It could be very important.
@WhatAmI
it is on page 2 of this link as well (the 1952 INA Act)…right before section 350 starts
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/1952_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_66Statxx_TitleIII_Chapter3.pdf
Again, I see “1986” as a means to enter the uncertainty and requirement to show beyond any doubt that an individual had intent to lose US citizenship, (while preserving the DOS’s ability to rule otherwise)
Oh, here is the old subsction (b). It’s in the “1952” link that Benedict gave above:
This and many other laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the laws have been amended several times to reflect that US citizenship cannot be taken away without the individual’s consent even if they perform what appears to be an expatriating act. I’ve moaned here many times that laws intended to guarantee and protect US citizenship for people who want and deserve it are being used against us to make it difficult to say that we gave ours up decades ago.
Here it is again, showing both the old and new text with all the old parts annotated as to when they were changed or repealed. In the case of subsection (b), it’s 1986 as Benedict said:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title8/pdf/USCODE-2010-title8-chap12-subchapIII-partIII.pdf
I’m seeing things I couldn’t see earlier. The 1952 doc and the USCODE-2010 doc show that the loss of USC due to voting in a foreign political election was removed from INA 349 on Oct 10, 1978. I thought it was much earlier. Maybe it was a Supreme Court decision that was much earlier.
Come to think of it, I remember when I starting voting in 1972, I believed it would terminate my USC. Whether it was true at the time, who knows, but AFAIC, I believed it at the time so it’s going on my case letter.
@WhatAmI
Here is a curveball…section b basically says (and this is prior to 1986)
and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: ‘‘Any person
who commits or performs any act specified in subsection
(a) of this section shall be conclusively presumed
to have done so voluntarily and without having
been subjected to duress of any kind, if such person at
the time of the act was a national of the state in which
the act was performed and had been physically present
in such state for a period or periods totaling ten years
or more immediately prior to such act.’’
Doesn’t this suggest that any of these acts is automatically presumed voluntary so long as one is a national and physically present for 10 years…
It may be a stretch..but is one is a national (isn’t one if you have a certificate of birth abroad?) and lived in the country for 10 years, then in effect, you voluntarily “worked for a government” etc….
Or am I mis-interpreting this ?
As a discussion forum, this WordPress system is horrible. Has anybody figured out how to search the _comments_ of a thread? Even if I could get all the comments into one long web page view, I could use the browser find function. Is there any way to do that?
@Benedict
First, let me say that I’ve posted several times that I read that INA 349 applied to only those naturalized in a foreign country, not born a citizen like I was. However, it clearly says it covers both. I don’t know where I read otherwise! INA 350 in the 1952 clearly says 350 only applies to duals since birth.
I agree with you that the old text says that if you performed an expatriating act, the US presumed you did it voluntarily and with the intention of losing your USC. This is what was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court many times over many years. They ruled that Congress cannot take away your USC without your consent. The laws were changed from assuming you wanted to relinquish USC to assuming you wanted to keep it. I haven’t tried to understand which if any changes were retroactive.
Note too that the list of expatriating acts in INA 349 was reduced from 10 to 7.
Everyone,
I looked briefly at the relinquish/renounce stories collected here over a year ago. I’ve been meaning to comb through them looking for anybody born in the US who moved to Canada as a child, who successfully obtained a back-dated CLN. This could be for a person with a Canadian Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad, as in my case, or one who naturalized as a child such as @Benedict.
Is there anybody here who was successful?
Ironically, to me, those born Americans who came to Canada years ago as adults after working and paying taxes in the US and who naturalized in Canada years ago are the ones who have the easiest time getting back-dated CLNs. I don’t begrudge their success of course, but Geeze Louise, those of us who came home to Canada as children seem “less American” to me but as far as I know, not one has been successful in getting a back-dated CLN?
@WhatAmI
This is a bit off topic, but funny considering my daughter now lives in the U.K. and works for a major law firm.
From my 1968 passport:
A Canadian citizen is a British subject
As if I don’t have enough complications 😉
@WhatAmI
I am going to post that rule (349) listing in it’s entirety as it applies to “native-born”…then point something out…
OK..so now that it is on the table…LOOK at this paragraph…
Either I am crazy or the wording says “On the one hand: one is presumed to have done so voluntarily”
but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing…
Basically, it looks like legaleze for..we reserve the right to judge either way (presumably in the persons favour if enough evidence can be provided by such person either way)
Now that that is established…we come back to the Oct 10, 1978 ruling…
The Oct 10, 1978 ruling repealed section 350…but if one is subject to 349, is one excluded from 350?
Section 350 appears to refer to people (who had dual nationality) who lived in another country until age 25 but didn’t necessarily commit an expatriating act…and that seems to be the difference…they simply lived outside of the US and “claims the benefits of the foreign state nationality” …failing to return to the US before they were 25 automatically terminated their US Citizenship…But this was repealed On Oct 10, 1978 (because the US Govt realized they can’t just take it away without an EXPATRIATING ACT)
So, I think it all comes down to: If you performed an expatriating act and can prove it by preponderance of evidence…the October 10, 1978 rule does not apply…
Ok…now I leave it to you to counter with any points I missed…
@Benedict
With regards to the section (b) that you quoted, I think the first sentence refers to the US government, being the one who is taking action. They have to prove that the loss occurred. The second sentence refers to the individual. Even though you appear to have voluntarily committed an expatriating act, you can try to prove that it was not voluntary. For example, people here at Brock successfully argued that they applied for US passports only because they were bullied into it by border crossing agents.
Read the oft-quoted Terrazas case. It details how he signed a Mexican citizenship document that included words about renouncing other citizenships (US). He did so knowingly but later said he had to, so it wasn’t really voluntary, and he certainly didn’t intend to renounce his USC even though the Mexiacn document required it. In other words, today, you are a USC unless you tell the DoS that you aren’t.
I might have this slightly wrong, but have a look. It’s easier to read than these INA acts and changes.
Section 350 says dual-nationality by birth, which is me, and as you say doesn’t include an expatriating act other than not returning to the US to live by age 25. That’s me exactly, except I turned 25 4 months after Oct 10 1978.
As for INA 350, I see now why I thought it didn’t apply to me and I retract my previous post and am back to thinking that it does not apply to me. The 1952 wording says:
OK, that is both you and me because were were born there. Then continuing to point (1):
That’s you, because you naturalized at age 10. I was born a Canadian, not naturalized, so I read (1) as not applying to me, but the other points do. From the 1952 numbering, (2) I may have signed an oath of allegiance on my passport application in 1975 or 76, (5) I voted in Canadian elections, and (6) I tried to renounce at a US consulate in the early 1970s but they said I wasn’t a USC and escorted me out the door.
I see it now in the USCODE-2010 doc (what a treasure this doc is) that point (5) about voting in foreign elections was struck out in the Oct 10 1978 change. Yippee! I voted before that.
One thing I’m not certain of: changes to the acts are effective the date that the president signed them into law. Does that mean that the law was the law up to those effective dates even though the Supreme Court declared those same laws unconstitutional several years before?