“In the late 60’s, SoS Rusk issued Certificates of Loss of Nationality to minors. Some sued in U.S. Federal Court to recapture their U.S. Citizenship and most did not fight it. Of those that did not fight it, they were notified of their right to recapture their U.S. Citizenship until 6 months after their 18th birthday.”
Actually, in 1967 Rush lost a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, in which SCOTUS ruled: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”
Clearly no “Certificates of Loss of Nationality to minors” could be issued by Rusk under a statute passed by Congress in 1968 at the time SvenMagnussen claims, which is after this decision.
Neither does Indonesia have the right to expatriate a US citizen with their law.
In the Elg case SCOTUS had already ruled that parents can’t expatriate and cancel the NBC status of a child, such as taking a child to Indonesia to be adopted and naturalized. Elg was not required to naturalize on her return to the US after she had been taken out of the US and naturalized in Scandinavia.
See:
Afroyim v. Rusk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim’s favor in a 5-4 decision issued on May 29, 1967. The opinion of the Court—written by Associate Justice Hugo Black, and joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Abe Fortas—was grounded in a revival of Warren’s dissent nine years earlier in Perez.[39][40][41] The new ruling held that “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”[42] Specifically repudiating the precedent set in Perez,[43][44] the majority of the justices rejected the claim that Congress had any power to revoke citizenship[45] and said that “no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty”.[33] Instead, the justices held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution defined “a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it” and which, once acquired, “was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.”[46][47]
The Court found support for its position in the history of the proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment, which had sought to revoke the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who accepted a gift or honor from a foreign government (but which was never ratified by the states and never became part of the Constitution).[15] The fact that this 1810 proposal was framed as a constitutional amendment, rather than an ordinary act of Congress, was seen by the majority as showing that, even before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress did not believe that it had the power to strip U.S. citizenship from anyone.[48] The Court further noted that a proposed 1818 act of Congress would have provided a means of voluntary relinquishment of citizenship, but opponents had argued at the time that Congress had no authority to provide for expatriation.[49]
In their efforts to deal only with the foreign voting question at the heart of Perez v. Brownell, Afroyim and his ACLU advocates had studiously avoided any direct challenge to the idea that divided allegiance resulting from foreign naturalization might validly lead to loss of U.S. citizenship. Nevertheless, the Court’s Afroyim ruling went beyond even Warren’s restrained dissent from the Perez decision—holding instead that “The very nature of our government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.”[50][51]
“You wrote:
“Actually, in 1967 Rush lost a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, in which SCOTUS ruled: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”
Clearly no “Certificates of Loss of Nationality to minors” could be issued by Rusk under a statute passed by Congress in 1968 at the time SvenMagnussen claims, which is after this decision.”
Another good find!
Besides, 0 was only 7 years old in 1968 so too young to relinquish on his own (needed to be 16), and mom or guardian couldn’t do it for him.
Actually, in 1967 Rush lost a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, in which SCOTUS ruled: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”Yes, exactly.
Congress can only write law concerning the naturalization process. Congress dictated terms and conditions Obama had to meet in order to naturalize in 1983.
The 14th Amendment dictates who is a U.S. Citizen.
The Executive Branch controls who is no longer a U.S. Citizen when it determines allegiance is questionable. SoS Dean Rusk is a cabinet official with the Executive Branch. It was the Executive Branch that decided children born in America who moved out of the U.S. and naturalized in foreign states had voluntarily abandoned their nationality and allegiance in the 60's.
The Executive Branch is subject to more control by the U.N. under treaty than by Congress when it comes to maintaining citizenship. Once SoS Rusk determined a U.S. Citizen had moved out of the country and would not be stateless, a CLN was issued.