Denaturalizing Citizenship For Immigration Fraud Comes Into DOJ Focus
I did NOT MENTION Ilhan Omar.
I appeared on July 1, 2025, on I’m Right with Jesse Kelly. It’s always good to appear on Jesse’s show.
The main topic was the recent Supreme Court “birthright citizenship” (aka “universal injunction”) case, and what it meant for the lawfare onslaught against the Trump administration.
"We're not even close to done" with birthright citizenship, says @wajacobson, despite the Supreme Court's latest ruling.
Subscribe: https://t.co/ETWKyUC1Wu pic.twitter.com/5ZeoZ19bOf
— The First (@TheFirstonTV) July 2, 2025
We also talked as some length about how ACB took KBJ to the woodshed with the full blessing of five other Justices.
But my favorite part was near the end, when I got to revisit the Rasmea Odeh immigration fraud and denaturalization case, about which I wrote extensively starting about a decade ago.
The current context was Trump administration indications that it would be looking to denaturalize citizens who obtained citizenship by fraud. Per Axios:
The DOJ directed attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases where naturalized citizens commit crimes, per the memo.
- A DOJ spokesperson told Axios that “denaturalization proceedings will only be pursued as permitted by law and supported by evidence against individuals who illegally procured or misrepresented facts in the naturalization process.”
- “Those who gain citizenship through unlawful means and endanger our national security will not maintain the benefits of being an American citizen,” the statement said.
My mind immediately went “there” though my words did not, as Jesse laughingly noted:
Transcript auto-generated, may contain transcription errors, lightly edited for transcript clarity:
Kelly: Alright, let’s talk about something near and dear to my heart and from what I understand near and dear to yours, denaturalization. This is not something that’s been tossed around a lot. The GOP’s been real shy about things like that and wanting to kind of play nice, but the DOJ indicates they’re gonna start looking at it, explain what it is, why, where are we going from here?
WAJ: Sure. Well, if you have been naturalized as a citizen, so you’re not born here, and you go through the immigration process and the naturalization process, if at any point along that line you make material misrepresentations, you forget to disclose, not forget, you don’t disclose things, you intentionally don’t disclose things or you lie on your applications, the government can move to rescind your naturalization, to strip you of your citizenship.
I covered at my website, about a decade ago, a very famous case involving a Palestinian terrorist named Rasmea Odeh. She came to the United States. She lied on her visa application about her terrorist connections. She lied on her naturalization application about it. She denied having any connections, but she did. And many years later, I think it was 15 years later, the FBI picked up on it and they filed criminal charges against her to strip her of her citizenship.
And that is what eventually happened. She lost the first trial, she got a retrial, and right before the second trial, she consented to leave the country and she was stripped of her citizenship.
So if there is a person here who lied on their immigration papers and their naturalization papers, for example, maybe they misrepresented their family connections. Maybe they committed marriage fraud to become a citizen. I’m not talking about anybody in particular, but, there have been allegations against a congresswoman about that. If it is substantiated, if somebody lied to get into the United States and gets citizenship, the government absolutely has a mechanism to strip them of that.
And the Department of Justice, again, I don’t know if they have a particular person in mind, but the Department of Justice has said they’re going start looking into that for people who have obtained citizenship and to challenge it. So it absolutely is a procedure. It has been used in the past and it can be used in the present.
Kelly: I just wanna make sure I’m being crystal clear with everybody that the professor was not discussing Ilhan Omar, who lied and married her brother to get into the country. He never mentioned that name at all. I just wanna make sure he never mentioned Ilhan Omar. Thank you so much, professor. I appreciate you.
Full segment:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So why not mention Ilhan Omar, the incestuous lying immigrant?
It’s more fun if she thinks she’s safe before the hammer drops.
Because this is irrelevant to her. Contrary to the Prof’s careless suggestion, there is no allegation whatsoever that Omar committed fraud in her immigration or her naturalization. I have to assume the Prof is not familiar with the allegations that do exist, or he would not have misrepresented them.
The host’s claim that Omar “lied and married her brother to get into the country” is absolutely false. It is beyond dispute that she was already a US citizen at the time of her purported “divorce and remarriage” (while actually remaining with her real husband the whole time).
Wow, JR
Is that you?
No, maybe it’s you.
Maybe it is you. Besides, I’m sure in a later post you will revisit your repeated claims that a naturalized person can never be thrown out of the country. You said it over and over. Turns out that as I pointed out you are completely wrong.
That’s right. That is the law. There is no dispute about it. Once someone is validly naturalized there is no way to take away their citizenship, no matter what they do.
Obviously if someone is not validly naturalized then they aren’t a citizen at all, and nothing needs to be taken away; all that’s necessary is for a court to examine the facts and determine that the person is and always was an alien.
Rasmea Odeh never was a US citizen. She was never naturalized. She falsely claimed to be naturalized, and was mistakenly treated as a citizen, but when the error was discovered it was corrected. Her case was no different than that of someone who falsely claims to have been born in the USA, and then it turns out they were really born over the border in Canada. Such a person was obviously never a citizen, and nothing needs to be taken away from them.
But someone who is a citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, can’t lose it involuntarily no matter what. So the Supreme Court has said multiple times.
Milhouse, a naturalized person who obeys the law cannot and should not be deported, even if that person is in some way obnoxious. As long as he/she is law-abiding, it’s settled.
You have agreed that a person who is not properly naturalized can be stripped of citizenship and deported. For example, by lying during the process of naturalization. If one checks the box “I am not now and have never been a Communist”, and we later discover that that person was a card carrying member of the Elbonian Communist Party, that person legally can be stripped of US citizenship and deported. You agree, correct?
So the point of discussion is whether a naturalized citizen, done in accordance with the law, who now breaks the law (e.g., commits a serious felony) can lose citizenship. Rather than opining, perhaps we should see what the law says (this is a legal blog, after all). The point of the article is that this indeed can be done. You say it can’t; please reference the law to tell us why you are right and Prof. Jacobson is wrong.
No, I maintain that they have no citizenship to strip. All the courts can do is recognize the fact that they are not and never have been citizens, and proceed accordingly.
Only material lies. Immaterial lies, i.e. lies that were irrelevant to the outcome, do not invalidate the naturalization.
It is settled law that they cannot. The 14th amendment says that anyone born or naturalized in the USA is a citizen. There’s no wiggle room in that. The amedment makes no distinction between born and naturalized. If the person is naturalized their citizenship is guaranteed, just as if they had been born in the USA.
See, for one instance among many, Afroyim v Rusk affirming that US citizenship cannot be involuntarily lost. No distinction is drawn between kinds of citizenship.
Milhouse is a classic Contrarian, and gets off on making assertions that reject the realities. This is fun to watch sometimes but gets tiresome after a while. It’s not trolling because he really believes this stuff, but arguing with him produces similar results. I’ve yet to see any modifications in his positions based on feedback, so he must be getting off on championing his Special Insights to the unenlightened. Or maybe he just has way too much time on his hands, and this is just his way of connecting.
Wasn’t the fake marriage to make her brother a citizen? In which case she didn’t obtain her own naturalization, but conspired in crimes.
True but it’s hard to see how that would invalidate her own naturalization.
It wouldn’t. That’s the point. There is no way to invalidate her citizenship because there’s no suggestion that there was anything wrong with it. Nothing she did after that can affect it.
No, the allegations are not false. Powerline has laid all the evidence out and it’s pretty damn clear she married her brother and committed fraud.
Yes, the claim that she “lied and married her brother to get into the country” is absolutely false. Powerline never made such a claim, and anyone who claims it did is misrepresenting it. It is very clear and undisputed that she got into the country as a child refugee, and was validly naturalized when she came of age. None of her marriages, all of which took place later, played any role in that.
Oh, look. A 5 sec search gave me this link https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php
Powerline has been on this for years. In their own words “Since August 2016 I have devoted myself to exposing the real Ilhan Omar — the one who married her brother for some fraudulent purpose in 2009.”
And you’re lying again. Nothing at that link, or at any link to Powerline, suggests that she “lied and married her brother to get into the country”, because she absolutely did not do that. The Powerline team know that better than anyone, because they’re very familiar with her case, and they have never made the claim you insist they made.
Again, it is beyond dispute that she arrived in the USA as a child refugee, and was properly naturalized as a young adult, long before any of her marriages. Therefore the claim you are defending is a lie.
The very quote you provide proves you a liar. Steinberg carefully writes that she married her brother for some fraudulent purpose. He is careful not to speculate what that purpose might have been. And he says it was in 2009, which means it can’t possibly have been for the purpose you insist on, and thus can’t possibly have the effect you claim it can.
If I’m ever caught with the proverbial dead girl/live boy, my first phone call will be to you because of your ability to zealously defend the indefensible.
I stand for the truth and nothing else.
Except when you make false claims.
I never make false claims. You are here repeatedly making a claim that your own citations show to be false.
But if the allegation is true, then she is a naturalized citizen who participated in an immigration fraud. Do the statutes require that the fraud concern one’s own naturalization? And isn’t it a crime to participate in a scheme of immigration fraud even if one is not the beneficiary of the fraud? If so, then if she’s guilty, because she is a naturalized citizen, wouldn’t it be theoretically possible to strip her of her citizenship as a naturalized citizen who has committed a crime?
You seem not to understand the entire subject. Not only are there no statutes involved, there can’t be, because any such statutes would be invalid. Once someone is validly a US citizen, that cannot ever be stripped, no matter what crime they commit. There is no exception for immigration fraud.
The only relevance of immigration fraud, and the reason we speak of it in this context, is because a naturalization obtained by fraud is obviously invalid, and thus the person is not a US citizen after all.
Rasmea Odeh was never a US citizen. Not because she committed a specific category of crime, which is somehow different from all other crimes. The fact that she committed a crime is irrelevant. The reason she is not a citizen is because she was never naturalized, because her purported naturalization was the result of fraud. She was not “stripped” of citizenship; the court merely discovered the truth, that she wasn’t a citizen.
Omar undoubtedly is a citizen. She didn’t obtain her naturalization by fraud, so it was valid. No crime she commits can possibly change that.
Gosh, I’m just an old country lawyer (retired) but I never knew::
That there’s a statute or decision supporting your assertion that “such statutes would be invalid. Once someone is validly a US citizen, that cannot ever be stripped, no matter what crime they commit. There is no exception for immigration fraud.” – Citizens for life? (Sounds like something we would hear from Justice Brown-Jackson);
That said, I completely agree with you that “a naturalization obtained by fraud is obviously invalid, and thus the person is not a US citizen after all” – so these people do not qualify for the rights of actual citizens, whatever the Court may decide they will be, including the “due process” that they rejected by failing to comply with the requirements of our immigration laws.
She married her brother to get him into the country. He should be denaturalized.
He was never naturalized in the first place. He has never pretended to be naturalized. He is not a US citizen, and not a US resident. So there’s nothing to do in his regard.
Just don’t say semprini.
I predict these cases are going to very difficult to adjudicate and very divisive (as if everything else isn’t at the moment), Stripping citizenship is an extreme penalty and once you start doing it, the other side will as well. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Certainly the dramacrats have forgotten it (or never heard of it),
After everything the left has done to Trump, not to mention all the lives they ruined in their pursuit of “insurrectionists,” I simply don’t care how divisive it is.
No one is above the law
Make them eat those words and eat them good….
The DoJ is unlikely to bring dubious cases with weak facts due to fear of very bad PR. Not sure what you are referring to in worrying about d/prog bringing cases, if there’s a material misrepresentation or a material fact omitted then that person shouldn’t have been granted Citizenship. I don’t care who they are, what their politics are or how supposedly wonderful a human being they claim to be. If they lied or omitted material facts that would have been disqualifying then they gotta be stripped of their invalid grant of US Citizenship and deported.
We are not talking about stripping citizenshiip. We are talking about revoking naturalization. Those are different things.
I’m not worried about the other side trying to weaponize this. What are they going to do that they don’t do, already?
And dual citizenship should be explicitly disallowed. At the very, very least no dual citizen should be allowed to serve in any elected government position or as a judge or justice.
We’re not even talking about revoking naturalization, we’re talking about establishing that the naturalization never happened in the first place,
That’s impossible. The USA has no control over other countries’ laws.
And that’s unconstitutional. The constitution sets out the eligibility criteria for elected office, and no one can change them.
It’s easily possible. You carry another citizenship then you lose your American citizenship.
If you claim that some other country is claiming you as a citizen without basis and without your consent then that can be adjudicated in America. It is an act of war for another country to start claiming Americans as their citizens against their will, so I’m not sure how many would try, but the US would certainly respond strongly to such brazen acts of aggression on both the person and the United States.
But,once again, you are trying to BS your way out. If someone takes an oath to become a citizen of another country or exercises any rights of citizenship in another country, ever, or that person satisfies simple NATURAL citizenship requirements (parent citizens of that country and born there) then that person must formally file to relinquish that citizenship and not visit there, or else forfeit his American citizenship. If one has another citizenship by birth then he must formally renounce it and cannot visit that country until they have agreed to dissolve all their ties of citizenship for that person..
You try and make things overly complicated (because you have a bug up your azz about … who knows what, but we all understand what people do with accumulating citizenships and how it is obviously ridiculous to have someone pledged allegiance to two or more nations.
Of course, you always had a huge problem understanding what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen” and why they put that requirement in for the President. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed … or just exceedingly dishonest for certain topics that strike a nerve with you.
That is not true, and it’s against the constitution.
It is impossible for the USA to disallow dual citizenship, because it has no control over other countries’ laws. If another country recognizes a US citizen as its citizen too, there is nothing the USA can do about it.
No, it cannot. First of all, it’s not without basis. Under the laws of that country you are its citizen. For instance many people born in the USA are also citizens of the countries their parents came from, because that’s what those countries’ laws say.
No, it isn’t. It’s the normal interaction of different nations’ laws.
And it usually isn’t against the person’s will. Most people who are eligible to another country’s passport are quite happy with it. Unless that country wants to conscript them into its army; in that case they’re unhappy with it, and try to renounce that citizenship, but not all countries allow renunciation. That is not an act of war; the only act of war would be if they were to send someone here to arrest a US citizen, on US soil, for draft evasion in that other country. No country does that; at most they just let the person know that if he ever visits that country he will be arrested on arrival and taken to a recruitment center.
It wouldn’t, and it doesn’t. It never has so responded, unless the other country forcibly arrested US citizens, on US soil (or on a US-flagged ship), for evading its draft. The only time that happened, the result was the War of 1812.
That is all utter and absolute bullshit that you just invented out of your rear end. It’s a lie from beginning to end. There is no such requirement under US law, and there never has been.
Having multiple citizenships is a NORMAL THING and tens of millions of people do have them. They’re generally useful, because you can go to more countries without a visa.
I’m entitled to at least two other citizenships (or at least to apply) based on THOSE country’s laws. Doesn’t mean I have to do it. Given my job and clearances, it made no sense to do so.
Or you can deny someone American citizenship until they surrender their foreign citizenship.
Naturalization is a civil process. Civil law isn’t bound by the prohibition on ex post facto laws. The demand for a naturalized citizen to give up a foreign citizenship or lose his American citizenship can be back dated.
Please, no complaints that the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies to both civil and criminal laws. Look it up in Madison’s Note of the Debates in the Federal Convention. It was acknowledged without debate that the prohibition is on criminal law and not on civil law.
If you’re entitled to apply for citizenship, then of course you’re also entitled not to. It’s your choice. You could apply for those citizenships, and it would not affect your US citizenship in any way whatsoever. But you could choose not to.
On the other hand, if under those countries’ laws you are a citizen of those countries, then that is an established fact. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. There is nothing the USA can do about it.
You may be able to renounce those citizenships, and if so that would be your choice, though nothing in US law would require you to do so. But some countries don’t allow you to renounce citizenship, and in those cases there’s nothing you can do to stop being their citizen.
There’s no need to backdate it, since that’s already a requirement for naturalization. But it doesn’t prevent dual citizenship.
Beside all the people who were born US citizens, and therefore had no need to naturalize, and whose dual citizenships are therefore untouchable, even naturalized citizens can be dual citizens in two ways:
1. The country of their other citizenship doesn’t accept the renunciation.
2. They acquire their other citizenship after their naturalization.
There’s nothing US law can do about either of these. A law stripping US citizens of their citizenship if they acquire foreign citizenship would be unconstitutional. See Afroyim.
That’s a real hair splitter. Yes, we are talking about revoking citizenship that was granted. That’s why it’s called revoking.
No, we are not. The constitution says, and the courts have affirmed, that citizenship can’t be revoked. Therefore we can’t be talking about that.
But it is obvious that a citizenship that never existed doesn’t exist. That’s a truism. Just because someone falsely claimed it existed doesn’t make it real. If someone was born in Canada but claims to have been born in the USA, they are not a US citizen no matter how many years pass before the truth is discovered. The person can be 90 years old, when it’s discovered that they weren’t born in the USA it turns out that they were an alien all those years. There’s no adverse possession on citizenship; no rule that if you’ve successfully pretended to be a citizen for so many years your pretense becomes real, like Pinocchio becoming a real boy.
Again with the “can’t revoke citizenship when it has been granted” You are wrong now as you were wrong before. Of course it can and Rubio is proving it. Just take the loss and move on.
No, diver64, you are wrong. All the courts that have ever considered the matter agreed that you are wrong.
In the past, a part of the US naturalization process was to renounce one’s citizenship in the country of origin. I do not know if that continues. If it doesn’t, it should be brought back. Teddy Roosevelt said it well — there is no such thing as a half-American.
You are correct in noting that we (of course) do not control the laws of other countries. A few countries (e.g., Cuba) have said that their citizens could not renounce citizenship without permission of the government. A Cuban citizen who swam the Florida Strait to come to the U.S., renounced Cuban citizenship, and became a U.S. citizen could be caught in a situation where (example, travel overseas) Cuba would claim jurisdiction over that person — “we don’t care that the person renounced his citizenship, he didn’t have our permission to do so.” I seem to recall something like that in the news but can’t put my finger on it right now.
It has been true for many decades that dual citizens cannot be eligible for security clearances. If you want to be employed by DOD, you have to hand in your foreign passport so they can shred it and renounce any foreign citizenships. And this applies to summer student employees too. People often run into this problem when they get naturalized, but want to retain their Russian or Chinese citizenship so they can visit family in those countries. Those countries are very particular about denying entry to former citizens.
Most people don’t work for DOD, and have no security clearance.
And renunciation of foreign citizenship doesn’t always work. The other country may not allow you to renounce.
Either way, none of this affects your US citizenship.
Didn’t Omar marry her brother to get HIM into the country, not herself?
That seems to be the case. We don’t actually know this for sure, but it’s hard to think of another reason why she would have done it.
In any case, she arrived here as a child refugee, and thus incapable of fraud. She was naturalized when she became an adult, and there is no allegation that any fraud was involved in that.
The first thing any naturalizing American does is take “The Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance”. In that primary oath, the candidate “(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;”.
Therefore, a naturalizing American cannot maintain (or get) any other citizenships or allegiances. Any naturalized American who has not formally relinquished all other citizenships is in violation of his primary oath and his American citizenship is thus null and void.
Interestingly, the entire legal profession and judiciary seem to be of the mind that lying on this PRIMARY and age-old oath (since the very beginning, basically) is almost expected and that it would be monstrous to force anyone to keep the first word he ever gave to this country in becoming a citizen …
Yes, the USA requires people naturalizing to renounce all foreign allegiances. This is true. But it is not true that “Therefore, a naturalizing American cannot maintain (or get) any other citizenships or allegiances.”
A naturalized citizen can have dual citizenship in two ways:
1. The country of which he was a citizen may not recognize or accept his renunciation. There’s nothing the USA can do about that. Such a person remains a citizen of the other country, and is now also a US citizen.
2. A naturalized citizen, just like a born citizen, can become a citizen of another country. If that country does not require the renunciation of other citizenships, and the person chooses not to renounce his US citizenship, then he is now a dual citizen. There is nothing the USA can do about it, even if it wants to.
2a. Even if the other country does require renunciation, the person can inform the USA beforehand that although he will be taking an oath renouncing US citizenship, he doesn’t mean it and doesn’t intend to actually renounce it. All the USA can do about that, if it chooses to, is inform the other country about it and let it do whatever it wants.
The oath is to “abjure” all allegiances and citizenships – which means to never take any on in the future.
LOL.
I have to admit, your comedy is strong!
First of all, no, it doesn’t mean that. You just made that up.
But even if it did, it wouldn’t matter because an oath is not binding. There is no law requiring a person to keep his oath. Just because one swears not to do something doesn’t mean one can’t later do that thing.
Normally it’s only small children that find things funny for no reason. I was not joking and there was nothing funny about what I wrote. It is a plain, sober fact that a person who intends to make an oath renouncing his US citizenship, but doesn’t intend to actually renounce it, can inform the USA of this in advance, and keep his US citizenship. That is the law, and that is the advice the State Department gives if asked. There is nothing the USA can do about it, even if it wants to; if it ignores such notice and treats the person as no longer a citizen, he can sue the State Department and will win, because the law is on his side. All the USA can do is inform the other country and let it do whatever it wants to about it.
This is not some hypothetical theorizing, it’s actual case law.
Because of where I was born, the country considers me a citizen under jus solis. I’m not, but could apply (as noted, I wasn’t interested and it would have had an effect on my later career choices. Another country says I’m eligible for citizenship because of my Great Grandfather’s citizenship (through my mom). Again, nobody can force me to do it and I currently have no interest for a number of reasons.
If your birth country considers you its citizen, then you are one. No application is necessary.
If it merely allows you to apply for citizenship, then it’s your choice whether to do so.
Either way this does not affect your US citizenship.
Milhouse, from the Merriam Webster dictionary, look at the definition and example:
abjure
verb
ab·jure ab-ˈju̇r
1:formal
a: to renounce upon oath
He abjured his allegiance to his former country.
Exactly. So you agree that Primordial made up his definition and is full of shit.
1. The US can stipulate that naturalization depends on the applicant’s disavowal of foreign citizenship and allegiances. The law can easily say “the United States considers a disavowal of foreign citizenship and allegiance dispositive, the laws or opinions of foreign countries notwithstanding.”
2. There is something that can be done – the US can strip a naturalized citizen of his citizenship for having a conflicting allegiance to another country if that’s what our law says. (I know you disagree, but naturalization if a process governed by civil law. Civil law can make benefits contingent upon performance. You want a benefit, here are the qualifications and disqualifications. It can also dictate consequences for behavior that is considered incompatible with the dispensation of the benefit.)
2a. In which case the person may be committing immigration fraud in the other country, and the US can easily avoid the situation (see point #2 above). The person can always re-apply for US citizenship at a later date.
No, it can’t. Because the fact is that if North Korean law says you’re a North Korean citizen, then you are one. It’s a fact, and there’s nothing the USA can do about it. Facts don’t change just because pretend they’re not there. North Korean citizenship is entirely a matter for North Korean law, just as US citizenship is entirely a matter for US law.
No, it can’t, because the US constitution says that someone who was naturalized is a citizen. You can no more revoke a naturalization than you can revoke a birth. Once someone was properly naturalized (which includes renouncing all foreign citizenships, whether that works or not), he can acquire as many foreign citizenships as he likes and there’s nothing any statute can do about it. Again, see Afroyim.
Oh, stop with your retarded BS. A person can lose American citizenship. He can renounce it or he can lose it by doing something that warrants America stripping him of it. Your idiotic claim that the Constitution says that someone IS a citizen and, therefore cannot involuntarily lose it is ridiculous because that same logic would mean that you think one cannot even voluntary relinquish his American citizenship because he IS a citizen, by your Constitutional poor-reading.
Logic is not your thing. Maybe you should stop abusing it – you might hurt yourself.
The Constitution says nothing about someone losing his American citizenship, by any means, so stop making stuff up.
The Constitution doesn’t allow for dual citizenship and the Founders despised the idea. The oath of Renunciation has been operative since something like 1795.
It is a modern creation to claim that the US allows for dual citizenship and it has absolutely no basis in American history. And the Founders were more aware of the concept than most people are today. There was one, single exception and that was LaFayette, but that was more of an honorary citizenship.
That is simply not true.
Unless the law was changed since 1992, the US does NOT allow dual citizenship. Dual residency, yes.
My late son was born in England. In order for him to be a natural-born US citizen, I had to go to the US embassy and file the Consular Report of Birth If he later wanted British citizenship, he would have to surrender his US passport and citizenship.
No, the law hasn’t changed; your understanding of the law is wrong. The US does allow dual citizenship, because it has no choice about it.
Your son was not a US citizen by right of the 14th amendment, but by statute. If either of his parents was a UK citizen or legal resident then he was also born a UK citizen. If so, nothing in US law required him to renounce that citizenship. If someone at the US consulate told you otherwise, they misinformed you.
Primordial is simply making things up out of his rear end. He has no idea what he’s talking about. Everything I wrote is solid case law.
The War of 1812 had many causes, including the USA’s wish to conquer Canada, but the official trigger for the war was the fact that the UK didn’t recognize the renunciation of UK citizenship, and considered all of its citizens who had become US citizens to still be its citizens as well. And since it was at war and its navy needed sailors, some Royal Navy captains decided to intercept US-flagged ships, check the sailors’ nationalities, and draft any who were, under UK law, still UK citizens. Naturally the USA took great exception to this, and that was the official reason it declared war on the UK.
There were a fair number British sailors who had deserted and were on the US merchant ships being stopped, boarded and searched by the Brits. The Brits did have more than a fig leaf for justification and then there’s the relative imbalance in military power. The US didn’t invest in a large Navy and large standing Army to deter these actions. No or few gun boats =no or little gun boat diplomacy.
The other piece of British/English common law on naturalization/immigration was the right of the sovereign to deport all non citizens/non subjects. Everyone born in the UK was considered a ‘subject of the Crown’ with minor exceptions but immigrants for the most part didn’t automatically gain status as subjects OF the Crown despite being subject TO the laws/power of the Crown.. The Brits were kinda inconsistent on this by also claiming those born to British merchants abroad were also British Subject. IOW the Brits seemed to have view that maximized British power/jurisdiction over as many people as possible.
Regarding the sailors who weren’t US citizens, the US had no reason to object to the Royal Navy drafting them. That’s the law of the sea; belligerent nations’ ships are allowed to stop neutral ships and search them for contraband, and for their own citizens. For instance, that’s the right Israel exercises when it boards ships trying to break the Gaza blockade.
What the US objected to was the drafting of UK citizens who had taken up US citizenship and renounced their fealty to the UK. As far as the USA was concerned these were its citizens, they were on its flagged ships, so the UK had no right to take them. But from the UK’s perspective these were still UK citizens and subject to the UK draft, and they had no right to renounce that fealty.
Sure but there was a brisk trade in false paperwork for sailors who ‘jumped ship’ and hadn’t set foot in the USA and as you point out the UK common law perspective of remaining subject to the crown for eternity.
IMO the USA should alter Naturalization as well as Passport eligibility to deny those who claim another National Citizenship of their own volition by not renouncing other Nations claims. So a lawful immigrant with a valid green card seeking Naturalization could retain their original Citizenship until their application was approved and they decided to renounce it in favor of US Citizenship. Same for ‘dual Citizens’, allow minor children to retain it but within 12 months of turning 18 they should decide whether to retain US Citizenship by affirmative action to renounce any other Citizenship. Could make it easier by adding it to selective service registration and making registration universal. Any current ‘dual citizen’ Adults… give them a year to choose. If anyone doesn’t choose then the US Citizenship is automatically revoked and US Passport cancelled. Blanket airwaves, social media, internet with plenty of publicity as well as in person ‘community outreach’ so there’s plenty of notice and no can claim to be blindsided. Some communities like for example Amish would require in person community contact.
Chief, your proposals are unconstitutional.
For instance someone is born in the USA and then applies for a foreign citizenship. He doesn’t renounce his US citizenship; therefore he is still a US citizen, and no law can change that. Any law that says he loses his US citizenship is invalid.
The exact same thing is true for someone who was born elsewhere and became naturalized in the USA. At the time of the naturalization he renounced all foreign citizenships, but his country of birth doesn’t accept the renunciation. He’s a dual citizen. Or suppose it does accept it; he’s now in the same position as the first guy, and if he subsequently acquires ten other citizenships he’s still a US citizen, and no law can say otherwise.
Milhouse,
Why do you presume my proposal is for a statute and not a Constitutional Amendment? FWIW every time I propose something that would probably be unconstitutional it is implied that a Constitutional amendment would be offered to support it not just a mere statute and now there’s an explicit communication of that.
Obviously there’s not much the US could do if the Nation of origin for a Naturalized Citizen adamantly claimed that person was still their Citizen. Though we could deny any visa, cut off diplomatic ties, end all economic ties…heck place them under a blockade …we could do those but probably wouldn’t.
What the USA can do is require the surrender of foreign passports and an official declaration to renounce citizenship of other Nations. We could place situation limits on that Nation of origin as a condition of granting US Citizenship. Could place limits on financial transactions/wife transfers to that Nation by the individual. Same way there’s a limit on green card holders exiting the USA or yhe time limit on US Citizen expat absence to retain qualification for Medicare.
If a US Citizen applies for foreign Citizenship it seems easy enough to regulate. First make it illegal for a duel Citizen to vote in Federal elections. Second require the immediate notification of State Dept of the application for foreign Citizenship together with the immediate surrender of any US passport held by the individual. Could even require disclose to financial institutions of foreign Citizenship and require financial institutions to report it to the Feds.
OK Chief, if you’re proposing all of that as an amendment, then all I can say is I disagree with it, but I don’t get a vote. If you can persuade 2/3 of each house of congress, and 76 state legislative chambers (75 if you include Nebraska) then good luck.
Why are you so hellbent to keep aliens who commit fraud in the country? It’s like a fetish with you.
I’m not. You’re hellbent on denying the law and the constitution, and lying about it.
I’m not sure the history lesson supports your argument. For the US to object to the UK’s seizure of US citizens, it must have rejected the idea of dual citizenship. Citizenship in the US was considered exclusive. When the US formalized its independence, citizenship ties to the UK were severed and replaced with US citizenship.
Your argument here is at odds with your statement at point #1, above, where you stated that if a foreign country wants to maintain a claim of citizenship in someone who desires to become a US citizen, there’s nothing the US can do about it. Except, I suppose, go to war. (Yeah, I know the situation was different and likely unique. But the principle is the same. People in the US considered themselves citizens of their States of of the United States, and those who had been British citizens no longer claimed their British citizenship, but Britain claimed they hadn’t or couldn’t surrender it. Same principle.)
No, it didn’t, because it couldn’t. But regardless of whether those people were UK citizens, they were also US citizens, and they were on US-flagged ships, i.e. US territory. The USA objected to Royal Navy officers boarding US ships and kidnapping US citizens from them.
Even going to war won’t change another country’s laws. If UK law says you’re a UK citizen then you are one. It’s just a fact. All a war can change is the consequences of that fact. (Or it could persuade the other party to change its laws.)
Should Obama be worried?
No. There was never any question that he is a US citizen; the question was whether he was natural born.
Leave a Comment