Many responses, but only a few have tried to answer this question:
What do you speculate is the percentage of Canadian citizens, resident in Canada, who are deemed by the United States to be U.S. citizens who:
— have NO meaningful relationship with the United States (e.g., no passport [unless demanded by U.S. border guard], no U.S. voting, no IRS filing, consider themselves only to be Canadians and not Americans) and do not want to be an American)
Most readers won’t speculate, but Portland (below) speculates that that percentage is around 85%, a very large percentage.
Is that percentage likely to be correct? No? 5% is a better estimate?
@Pacifica777 I realize that this is off topic but you said “The Supreme Court didn’t reinstate their citizenship. The Supreme Court made intent of the person necessary for a person to lose their citizenship. If a person had the intent to relinquish, the citizenship remained terminated.”
Has the DOS ruled on this in the past? This could be very important for those with RBA in Canada whose parents registered there birth.
Cheryl. Not sure what you mean.
Someone I know ,born in the US, obtained Canadian citizenship in the early 70s and thereby automatically lost her US citizenship.
In 1980 the Supremes issued their ruling that intent was required. ( Vance v. Terazzas)
My friend then went to have her US citizenship reinstated. I can tell you that State were very unhappy about this, made her jump through all kinds of hoops, but were obliged to obey the law so she becaame a dual citizen.
She went merrily along for 30 years. Finally, when it became apparent that dual citizenship was an unstable state, she once again relinquished her US citizenship.
This issue is really not directly related to this thread but S.349 (a) (1) asserts that expatriation can occur by a parent applying for naturalization of a child and was only permanent if the child resides in the U.S. on their 25th birthday.
With my DOS decision we know that RBA is an act of naturalization under U.S. law. Could not the child choosing not to live in the U.S on their 25th birthday show intent which the DOS should then accept?
@ Cheryl,
I don’t think I understand your understand your question.
But I don’t think DoS specifically ruled on it because they’re bound by Supreme Court decisions. And the Supreme Court didn’t do a blanket reinstatement of citizenships, just required in Terrazas that, to result in citizenship loss, the relinquishing act had to be performed with the intent of relinquishing, So, if a person had the intent to relinquish, their citizenship was not reinstated.
But you probably know that already and, like I said, I don’t think I understand your question
@ Cheryl,
Oh, we were posting at the same time. Now I understand what you’re asking.
“With my DOS decision we know that RBA is an act of naturalization under U.S. law. Could not the child choosing not to live in the U.S on their 25th birthday show intent which the DOS should then accept?”
I don’t know. That sounds like s. 350, which I don’t know much about. But probably someone else has looked into that and will reply.
Just my 2c here: Section 350 didn’t require intent, just required that a person lived there by age 25. Is that correct? If so, intent wouldn’t matter. And s. 349 does require intent, but not living in the US by one’s 25th birthday wouldn’t be a relinquishing act under s. 349, so I don’t see how it would work under s. 349.
No this would not be S.350.
Prior to at least 1977, S. 349 (a) (1) states expatriation occurs when
“(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:…..unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday:”
That was the law at the time. I get that the application by a parent is now removed as is the residence requirement but at the time of these individuals registration it was as I quoted.
I don’t know.
@Pacifica777 Also when I began with my S.349 case for relinquishment the DOS firmly believed that RBA was NOT an act of naturalization. I’ve been under the impression that this was one of the major stumbling blocks to relinquishment but not the only one.
This is “Schroedinger’s Citizenship”! Such-and-such a person either is, or is not, a US citizen. His citizenship status is indeterminate until “observed” (confirmed / rejected) by the government as a result of some deliberate act (analogous to opening the box).
“…citizenship status is indeterminate until “observed” (confirmed / rejected) by the government as a result of some deliberate act … ”
Isn’t that always the case? How could it be otherwise? Unlike the cat, citizenship status has no material existence. It represents the official answer to a bureaucratic question (does this person meet certain criteria, yes/no)
Imagine, if you will, that the cat itself may not know whether it is alive or dead!
Or can’t prove it, if undocumented.
If the cat’s dead then it 100% doesn’t know.
@Portland Sorry I missed your comment. I am more interested in the reverse…lost citizenship is forcibly returned when unwanted. Doesn’t sound constitutional to me but I don’t really know. Difficult to correct even if true, I guess.
Cheryl I don’t see anyway lost citizenship can be forcibly returned.
In trying to deny that my RBA was an act of relinquishment, the DOS was trying to deny my relinquishment. If you don’t have a CLN which was not required, they can do anything they want. You may have to fight a long battle or go to court.
What I am getting at is that prior to the intent rules being applied, individuals who were registered as a birth abroad were told that they would lose their U.S. citizenship as a result and by law it was a relinquishing act. Those people continued their life as Canadians only to now be told that the citizenship was wrongly removed and force them to take it back. This is wrong and unconstitutional in my mind.
The onus is on the individual to prove it which is what I did (4year battle) but won’t be as easy or perhaps impossible for those registered by their parents.
That’s the way it seems to me anyway. I
I also think it would be very difficult or impossible in the case of a minor who was registered as a birth abroad (RBA) by their parent to claim a relinquishment based on that act because the minor couldn’t form the intent to relinquish, the legal presumption being that one must be 18 to form intent. And if the parent registers the child, the child isn’t performing any act.
[This age presumption can be rebutted, if close to 18. Then the DoS “must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily.” 7 FAM 1292(i). Phil Hodgen reported in detail on a 17 year old who successfully renounced in 2015.]
Has anyone who left the US and became a citzen of other countries during the 60’s through to the early 80’s , when the INA and DOS considered naturalization as a relinquishing act, been forced legally to accept the return of their citzenship ,even after the relevant INA clauses had been amended,simply removed, or made retroactive after the act of naturalization. Ii’ve askec this question before in another manner. Andy5 came closest to a definitive and clear answer but still left some doubt.
This relates somewhat to Cheryl’s forced citzenship question.
My understanding is that any or all of those clauses effecting citzenship change requires some sort of acceptance ,an oath,pledge,signature in order be binding legally.
The interesting thing is that prior to 1977, the Canadian citizenship conferred to the child was not permanent as the child with an RBA had to assert that citizenship as an adult or the citizenship was lost.
One way to assert it was to make a declaration of retention of citizenship which could be considered an application for citizenship as an adult which if the intent was their would be a relinquishment?
The other way of asserting the citizenship was by residing in Canada on their 24th birthday. Not sure how that plays.
Still though, prior to the implementation of intent all these actions were acts of relinquishment unless the child took up residency in the U.S. before their 24th birthday. The U.S. reimposed citizenship on some at least, who had intended to lose it.
I believed and therefore firmly intended to lose my US citizenship when I took an oath of obedience to the Queen in 1993 to gain British citizenship. Then I was bullied by a US immigration official in 2007 when I tried to enter the USA on a British passport. When I visited the US Embassy in London in 2008, and tried to discuss the matter, the official there lost his rag over the fact that I’d changed my name by deed poll rather than through a solicitor. Cowed by this, I meekly applied for a new US passport. Urgh!
I visit the London Embassy in a fortnight’s time, and would like to argue for a CLN backdated to 1993. I feel like US citizenship was forced onto me when I’d planned to lose it. However, I understand that, because of the passport, it’s very likely this will be denied, and I’ll have to renounce.
I find it incredible that the US just won’t let people go.
I’m not sure but I think those whose parents registered their birth abroad in Canada on behalf of the child lost their U.S. citizenship at the time. S. 349 (a) (1) no longer includes the application on the behalf of a child as an expatriating act as it did before the Supreme Court rulings being implemented.
I believe those children, now adults, have in the past had their expatriation revoked and would unlikely be successful in getting a CLN.
Of interest prior to Feb 15, 1977 the Canadian cituzenship was only temporary and required action on the part of the child when they reached adulthood or the citizenship would be lost. That seems an interesting twist that has not yet been explored with the DOS.
I would suggest that it is not just incredible but quite possibly unconstitutional?
Re: “I also think it would be very difficult or impossible in the case of a minor who was registered as a birth abroad (RBA) by their parent to claim a relinquishment based on that act because the minor couldn’t form the intent to relinquish, the legal presumption being that one must be 18 to form intent. And if the parent registers the child, the child isn’t performing any act.”
Thinking more about it, I think it might work for a minor who turned 25 before the s. 349(a)(1) was changed in 1986 (I think it was 1986), if he did not “enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday,” as it was worded up til that time. Could be really dicey, though. I’d be really interested to know if anyone has achieved this.
I can’t think of anyone who has got (or applied for) a CLN based on this. The only person I can think of off hand who fits that is staying under the radar but plans to rely on the legislation which was in effect at the time of his 25th birthday, should the need arise to prove non-US citizenship for FATCA purposes.
If an application for US passport was non-wilful then it surely doesn’t indicate intention to retain US citizenship[*].
[* It surely doesn’t indicate intention to retain US nationality either, but I’m not quite sure how a US non-citizen national can decide intentionally to retain or relinquish US nationality, since only Congress could make such decisions based on Congress’s intent, though US Supreme Court seems to have muddied this issue in Afroyim v. Rusk.]
‘Thinking more about it, I think it might work for a minor who turned 25 before the s. 349(a)(1) was changed in 1986 (I think it was 1986), if he did not “enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday,” as it was worded up til that time.’
Surely that would also depend on whether, at the time of failing to enter the US to establish a permanent residence, the failure was due to intent to relinquish US citizenship or was due to some other reason such as not being able to afford travel expenses or being disabled.
I believe that the Supreme Court did not disallow Congress to determine what are expatriating acts, they simply said that such acts only result in expatriation if there was intent on the part of the individual.