Replies

Its complicated. The U.S. Immigration Support web-site states that dual-citizenship is recognized by the U.S. government. It is stated that

The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship.
Dual citizenship is a complex issue and it is important that you understand that there also obligations and not only benefits that comes with being a dual citizen. Being a citizen of two countries means that you need to obey the laws of both countries, including paying taxes and serving in the military (if required by any of the countries)...

I've always percieved citizenship to be that of whatever country you live in and pay taxes to. However, I can identify with cultural ties that preclude one from severing citizenship ties to the "old country" of one's heritage (even if its "vestiginal" in that no obligation or onus is placed by the country of one's heritage.

The biggest issue with regards to citizenship pertains to travel. International travel requires passports and quite possibley either exit or entry visas (or both). Having dual citizenship allows one to enter on a foreign passport and entry visa is not required by the destination country. However, the reverse may not be so clear.

The destination country may require an exit visa to leave the country on a "foreign" passport, i.e., American. Returning to the "home" country with the "home" passport from a foreign destination will not contain an exit stamp of the "foreign" country on the "home" passport. That could require an entry visa to the "home" country. Its not quite "Catch-22", but it can get sticky; you either don't get out easily of the "foreign" country, or you may not get in to the "home" country so easily. Its always been my thought that the point of having two passports was so that one could get out of hairy situations when needed. Nevertheless, the issue of exit / entry visa is a potential issue; how would one explain to that particular interested "gatekeeper" why such visa isn't in the passport currently being used? Dual / multiple passport travel is definitely not for the faint hearted, and especially if one doesn't know what they're doing.

I heard tell:

On the Vietnamese-Lao border I met a very poor guy who had left Lao using his NZ passport, and trying to enter Vietnam om his English one. The Vietnamese wouldn't let him in and didn't acknowledge that it is possible to have two passports. In fact they thought he was a criminal with two passports. The Lao would not let him in anymore since he did not have a valid visa anymore. I hope he is not still sitting there...

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC Section 1401

states:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is anybody alleging that NoBama was NOT born on U.S. soil? In such case, 8 USC Sec 1401 (b) is irrelevent as it pertains specifically to First Nations. 8 USC Sec 1401 (c) is inapplicable in that it refers to both parents being citizens (at one having a residence in the U.S.A. or its territories). 8 USC Sec 1401 (e) is irrelevent in that it refers to birth within U.S. terrororities / possessions. Furthermore, 8 USC Sec 1401 (f) is irrelevent in that it refers to people udner the age of 5 years discovered in the U.S.A. of unknown parentage where no evidence of birth outside the U.S.A. isn't presented prior to the individual attataining the age of 21.

However, 8 USC Sec 1401 (d) does stipulate that a single U.S. citizenship parent must have resided in the U.S.A. (or its territories) for a contiguous period of 1 year immediately prior to the birth.

However, 8 USC Sec. 1401 (g) states:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

Is anybody alleging that his mother was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of NoBama's birth (regardless of where it occured)? And regardless of sovereignty of soil upon which NoBama was born, was his mother, if she putatively WAS a U.S. national, not physically present on U.S. soil for a period (or periods) TOTALLING 5 years (at least TWO of which occured in total after the age of FOURTEEN)?

Ammendments to this section of the code:

1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five".

This ammendment is not applicable in a foreign birth situation to a U.S. citizen parent prior to the date of the ammendment, in that Congress is prohibiting from passing any ex post facto laws.

So the salient points are whether NoBama was born in the U.S.A. or any of its territories, or whether or not NoBama's mother spent at least 1 consequtive year in the U.S.A. or territories immediately prior to his birth or whether or not she was at least 19 at the time of his birth, and had not lived a period(s) totalling 10 years in the U.S.A. (5 years of which occured after age 14). If ANY of those are true, he's an American citizen.

In any case, there's no place like home and until an American has been abroad (and experienced some trials and tribulations in that regard), they truly don't know what home is. Neverthelss, that notwithstanding and all that, its all a moot point with respect to the Constitutional requirements of nationality with respect to requirements demanded to fill the Office of the President of the United States of America, no? I'm VERY interested in how this plays out.

Not that I'm interested in seeing Hillary in, but what would happen if the validation of votes was rejected on account of this issue? Or what would happen AFTER NoBama was innaugurated and it was found out he was unfit? I don't care 'bout indictment, impeachment or criminality, just who takes over then? At that point EVERY single voter in this country becomes "disenfranchised". And that's a bad thing, no?