Is it possible that the U.S. Supreme Court by saying that a person is presumed to have the intent of keeping U.S. citizenship is actually guilty of using negative option marketing. What you may ask is negative option marketing? Here is one definition:
Negative option marketing refers to a commercial transaction in which a seller interprets a customer’s failure to take an affirmative action, either to reject an offer or to cancel an agreement, as affirmative assent to be charged. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_option_marketing
I recall that in Canada during the 80’s and 90’s there was a lot of controversy over negative option marketing with regards to the way that the cable companies were billing their customers. The problem was that the cable companies, without gaining customer assent, would add channels to a person’s service and bill the person for those services unless the customer said that the channels were not wanted. This was the way in which many new channels that could not find a ready market were able to establish themselves.
After this went on for quite some time the cable customers began to complain about having to pay for channels that they didn’t ask for but were being billed for. The eventual response of the Canadian Radio Television Commission was to outlaw this marketing technique because it placed an undue burden on the customer to respond to a solicitation that had not been asked for.
I believe that when the U.S. assumes that one is a citizen unless one states to the U.S. government that he/she is not that this is also negative option marketing. Given that we all have a right to freedom of association I do not believe that accidental Americans should be subjected to negative option citizenship. It used to be the rule that at the age of 18 a dual citizen had to choose which citizenship to accept. Maybe it is time that the U.S. go back to not allowing dual citizenship. Afterall the U.S. seems to still operate on the defacto principle of a single citizenship. The U.S. government has proven that it is not willing to acknowledge the reality of the second citizenship any and ONLY allows a person to live as the citizen of another country only as long as it doesn’t conflict with the demands of U.S. citizenship.