Here‘s what Spain has to say:
| Spanish | English translation |
| La concurrencia de dos nacionalidades en una misma persona tiene como consecuencia la existencia de un doble vínculo jurídico. La persona con doble nacionalidad es, a un tiempo, nacional de dos países, gozando de la plena condición jurídica de nacionales de ambos Estados. | The concurrence of two nationalities in one single person has as a consequence the existence of a dual juridical bond. The person with dual nationality is, at one time, a national of two countries, enjoying the full juridical status of nationals of both States. |
Imagine that: speaking of dual nationality in terms of “full status”, rather than of how the citizen must serve the government. They go on:
| Sin embargo, esto no quiere decir que estas personas puedan estar sometidas simultáneamente a las legislaciones de ambos países sino que, por el contrario, se articulan medios para “dar preferencia a una de las nacionalidades” a la persona con doble nacionalidad para, de esta manera, tener un punto de referencia en lo relativo a las relaciones ciudadano-estado. | However, this does not mean to say that these persons may be subjected simultaneously to the legislation of both countries but instead that, on the contrary, measures are articulated by which to “give preference to one of the nationalities” of the person with dual nationality so that, in this manner, there can be a point of reference with regards to the relations of the citizen and the state. |
| Para ello, la mayor parte de los convenios de doble nacionalidad toma el domicilio como punto de referencia, de tal manera que los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad no estarán sometidos de forma constante a ambas legislaciones, sino sólo a la del país en el que tengan fijado su domicilio. Esto será aplicable para cuestiones tales como el otorgamiento de pasaporte, la protección diplomática, el ejercicio de los derechos civiles y políticos, los derechos de trabajo y de seguridad social y las obligaciones militares. | Due to this, most conventions on dual nationality take the domicile as the point of reference, in such a way that the citizens with double nationality are not subject constantly to both laws, but only that of the country in which they have fixed their domicile. This will be applicable to questions such as obtaining passports, diplomatic protection, exercise of civil and political rights, rights for labour and social security, and military obligations. |
Similarly, here’s what the Commission on Filipinos Overseas has to say:
Is it possible for Filipinos to hold dual citizenship or more than one citizenship at the same time?
Before the passage of R.A. 9225, dual citizenship of some Filipinos already existed as result of the operation of nationality laws. For example, a child born in the United States of America of Filipino parents is an American citizen under US law, and a Filipino citizen under Philippine law. The child’s American citizenship is derived from the principle of jus soli or place of birth, while his Philippine citizenship is derived from the principle of jus sanguinis or citizenship of his parents. The passage of R.A. 9225 makes it possible for Filipinos to hold dual citizenship through means other than by birth.
What rights and privileges is one entitled to on re-acquiring Filipino citizenship?
Filipinos who re-acquire Filipino citizenship under this Act may once again enjoy full civil, economic and political rights under existing laws of the Philippines. Among these are:
- right to own real property in the Philippines
- right to engage in business or commerce as a Filipino
- right to practice one’s profession in accordance with law
- right to acquire a Philippine passport
- right to vote in Philippine elections under existing laws
- other rights and privileges enjoyed by Filipino citizens
What’s this claptrap? These weirdos think dual citizenship is a matter of “rights” and “privileges” and “full status”? They want to make their citizens’ lives easier? Let Uncle Sam show you how it’s really done:
| Legalese | English translation |
| Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. | All those other countries are gonna try to do horrible things to you and they won’t let us help you. Wouldn’t you rather have the full protection of the Greatest Country on Earth™? Remember, if you live somewhere, whoever runs that place owns you. |
| However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. | Oh wait, we don’t actually mean that. We mean that if you live here, we own you and that other little garbage country of yours can’t say anything, but if you live somewhere else, we still own you. If we say we own you, then we own you. You do what we say even when that other little garbage country of yours says you can do otherwise. You do what we say even if you don’t live here, especially if you come here for a visit. Think you’re a foreigner just because you have some funny little booklet? Think again pal. We make sure you can’t get us off your back that easily. |
Have fun kiddies! And remember to file your Forms 1116, 2555, 3520, 5471, 8621, 8938, and FBAR!
@Petros I read his story, in his situation it was a hassle yes, but it comes back to me at least that we need to be able to control and monitor our border. As a US citizen (even though he didn’t claim it or want it,) with a US passport there’s no question he would have been let in with no hassle at all, and I guess in the end he didn’t really even want to be an American so he took care of it.
@Arrow Hmm CBP isn’t the friendliest bunch on their best days, while I don’t think they should or can judge who is and who isn’t an American, I think having the issue settled officially would be way easier than just pleading to a dumb border guard who can only be a jerk rather than actually do or change anything. I’ve read here about getting the CLN certificate and it seems like a real pain, but I guess if you don’t want to keep your American citizenship or never considered yourself to even be one of us it would be the best thing to just get the certificate.
@Bubble I know, I hate it, when I was younger we could drive up to Windsor, or Niagara Falls on a whim with just driver’s license and birth certs to drink before we were 21, the WHTI is stupid, I don’t like it at all.
@Badger Yeah that’s not cool, I’m not an advocate of the taxation policy, I think it’s overly complex and not user friendly for those abroad. I don’t support it, but I do think that people wanting to come to the US for any reason should abide by the rules that keep the border secure, so if you’re an American in reality or just by coincidence you should either have the documentation be it a US passport or the CLN certificate. I agree there shouldn’t be any link between passports and taxes.
The letter is interesting, the dad took total advantage of studying at a US university but has decided that his son should not be afforded this opportunity and turns the entire US in to basically a wasteland through his “disabilities” of being a US citizen? The son might be doing under-grad at a school in Canada but what if the kid did so well he wanted to do post-grad at a US institution, or just got bored at the Canadian university and wanted to transfer to a US school? The issues are very real and can be very taxing (hehehe) but there is also a huge opportunity for being a US citizen. I dismay too at the fact that letter was needed but I do think he did big up the requirements and down play the great opportunities afforded to American citizens.
@geez I’m sorry that you feel like that, I’m also sorry that the US couldn’t keep you. All of you seem like really great people who just found better opportunities outside the US, I don’t think you should be punished and it is really our loss as a nation that you all left in the first place. The last part does seem crazy, the US has no real jurisdiction out there does it? So how can they require you to use your US passport anywhere but at the US border? Were I in your shoes I think I’d probably pretend I didn’t know about that when travelling where it would be advantageous to utilize the other passport, haha.
*geeez, you wrote:
This is not necessarily true. I’ve had some bad experiences and would rather not work in the US if I don’t have to.
@swisspinoy, At least for me, so far, the US has been a great place to live, study, work and play. I wouldn’t say that it’s the “land of opportunity” because in many instances there were no opportunities for me and for other people I know, and I wouldn’t say that it’s the “land of the free” because many other countries are as free or even more free than the US. It’s not the “greatest country on Earth” because that’s a very subjective title, it’s just a big nice country with its advantages and disadvantages like any other. For me, the advantages weigh more, but I understand that for many people the disadvantages are too big. I think it’s a matter or personal choice where you want to live, and I’m fighting for us to be able to have that choice as Americans.
@renoucnecitizenship, That is indeed a great letter. I had a similar conversation with the Frenchlings (minus the part about registering for the draft). Will have to do it again because they were a little overwhelmed by the info and some of it didn’t stick.
@geeez, It varies. I know French and Indians in the US who think it’s just fine but they don’t plan on staying. They are there for professional reasons and once they make their money they will leave because they prefer either to go home or move on. None were aware of the filing obligations on worldwide income or the FBARs until we talked which I think is a scandal. Didn’t change their minds about staying for the length of their contract but it did make them think that moving on sooner rather than later was a good idea.
@Eric, wonderful post. Thank you so much for the translations.