Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: patlin

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.


And yet we’ve always had folks with dual citizenship, tens of thousands of them.

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.


164 posted on 06/23/2010 2:39:02 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
These days, the only way to lose US citizenship...

Permit me to properly finish that for you.

These days, the only way to lose US citizenship is to continue to elect liberals to office who appoint even more liberals who turn a blind eye to that law so they don't actually have to uphold their oaths of office by enforcing the law.

Since when does ignoring the law make it legal to break it? Where is that definition or practice in the US Code? We are either a nation of laws or we have slipped back into a nation ruled by men with no regard to the written law. A nation & society can not continue to exist in the latter form and we are very close to that breaking point. HISTORY is replete with cases showing what NOT to do if your country expects to survive. So now that I know which side you are on, which country would you like a one way ticket to because we are NOT giving up ours.

166 posted on 06/23/2010 2:57:32 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson