Expressly prohibit? It surely is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITTED BY LAW. It has been since 1776, and further codified by treaty & Acts of the congresses of the confederation & federal government in 1783, 1789, 1790, 1795, 1802, 1824, 1853, 1866, 1868, etc, etc.
Expressly prohibit? It surely is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITTED BY LAW. It has been since 1776, and further codified by treaty & Acts of the congresses of the confederation & federal government in 1783, 1789, 1790, 1795, 1802, 1824, 1853, 1866, 1868, etc, etc.
I’m sure you are aware of the fact that Mexico changed its laws a few years back to allow US citizens who were born in Mexico to vote in Mexican elections. There are even Mexican polling places in US cities.
A US citizen ran for the Israeli Parliament in the last general elections. He didn’t win.
Nobody knows how many Americans of Irish descent are Irish and American dual citizens since Ireland has among the most liberal citizenship laws in the world.
I’m certain that the following is going to drive you crazy but that is not my intent, I only want to provide an example:
The special exemption to U.S. Nationality Law available to dual citizenship Israeli-Americans
The 1940 Nationality Act
Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, “shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state.”
This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.
But then something different happened.
In 1967 an American named Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship — right? Wrong.
After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act — the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.
Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the US Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court (Afroyim v Rusk). The high court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to “rob” Afroyim of his American citizenship.
The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown “intent” to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections.
Since then, dual citizenship has been “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t renounce.”
These days, the only way to lose US citizenship – barring treason or joining a hostile foreign army - is if a person explicitly renounces it with intent to give it up. The key word is intent- if a person acquires a foreign nationality but would never dream of relinquishing their US citizenship, this is clearly not an intent to renounce. And the only way to legally relinquish US citizenship is to leave the country, sign an “oath of renunciation” in front of a US consular officer or diplomat, and then hand over one’s passport for confiscation.