Slashdot Mirror

no, it's not a rule at all. your information is about 45 years out of date.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#noway

Ooops, here is the link again. It was missing the "l" at the end of "htm".
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html

Actually, the US don't allow it.

They do, at least after 1967 and/or 1980, the Supreme Court allowed it. And even before that, many babies born from an American parent would keep their US citizenship, even if they had a second, third, or fourth citizenship from elsewhere.

And if after those dates, you felt pressured to give up your US citizenship by the State Department (or by an oath you took), you should be able to get it back now if you fight for it back.

In fact, YOU are entirely incorrect. When my father was naturalized a few years ago he was required to renounce any allegiance to "all foreign potentates."

As of 1990 the State Department has stopped pursuing this issue. You can make all the oaths you want in front of the naturalization court judge but it's basically considered to be a matter of heart and mind rather than legal status. You do not have to follow up with your original country of citizenship and make any renunication to them, so effectively you can maintain your original citizenship. Whether or not your father was aware of this is, of course, another matter. It's not something the naturalization officials advertise.

I invite you to read the long-standing and well-respected dual citizenship FAQ from Rich Wales.

Or, as I've done (not necessarily for the purpose of this discussion on Slashdot) date a lawyer who works on this stuff.

The US does in fact allow Dual Citzenship

On the books so does the US. Not so sure if this link is 100% correct (pulled it off a quick search) but I remember reading/hearing something like this before: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html ... under the heading "Citizenship by naturalization (INA 337, 8 USC 1448)"

Granted, in practice it doesn't seem to be used. I guess the US is a nation with too many laws.

"Note that a US citizen is generally required by US law and State Department regulations to be in possession of a US passport when leaving or entering the US. This requirement does not apply when entering the US from Canada, Mexico, or Caribbean countries (other than Cuba); however, even in those cases, proof of one's identity and one's US citizenship is still required, and a passport is probably the best such proof."

I guess the FAQ will have to be updated.

You have to be a US-born citizen to run for president.

To be pedantic about it, you probably don't have to be born in the USA but you do need to be an american at birth, ie a "natural born citizen".

Here's a discussion about it:

I've heard vague talk of John McCain running in 2008. The topic would certainly be debated then because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

This is not strictly true. Yes, for a person to become a US citizen, they are supposedly required to renounce any other citizenship. However, the US has absolutely no control over another sovereign country's (Canada) citizenship laws. So, that child can renounce his Canadian citizenship all day long, and he's still a Canadian citizen in the eyes of the Canadian government, and still qualifies for a Canadian passport.

It is possible to truly give up your Canadian citizenship, but it's a fairly convoluted process, and won't happen just because you signed some declaration or your US citizenship statement.

See here for more information.

Actually, there is a law saying that you can lose your American citizenship if: "serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;" John Walker fits the second description. In effect, he is no longer a US citizen.