DUAL CITIZENSHIP
CRS Report for Congress
Dual Citizenship
October 1, 1998
Margaret Mikyung Lee
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
ABSTRACT
This report provides an overview of the legal requirements for dual citizenship and some of
the issues concerning dual citizenship. There are several potential problems and issues falling
into two categories—first, actions which may result in expatriation from the U.S., i.e., loss
of American citizenship, and second, potentially conflicting obligations to both countries, e.g.,
mandatory military service for men, double income taxation, voting privileges, public office
or employment and repatriation of income from employment or investment abroad. The report
will first discuss the legal basis for dual citizenship, then the expatriation actions, the
potentially conflicting obligations of holding citizenship of the U.S. and another nation, the
dual citizenship laws and legislative activity of selected countries in which a significant
number of U.S. citizens may be eligible for dual citizenship, and finally, legislative activityth
in the 105 Congress.
Dual Citizenship
Summary
This report provides an overview of the legal requirements for dual citizenship
and some of the issues concerning dual citizenship. There are several potential
problems and issues falling into two categories—first, actions which may result in
expatriation from the U.S., i.e., loss of American citizenship, and second, potentially
conflicting obligations to both countries, e.g., mandatory military service for men,
double income taxation, voting privileges, public office or employment and
repatriation of income from employment or investment abroad. The report will first
discuss the legal basis for dual citizenship, then the expatriation actions, the
potentially conflicting obligations of holding citizenship of the U.S. and another
nation, the dual citizenship laws and legislative activity of selected countries in which
a significant number of U.S. citizens may be eligible for dual citizenship, and finally,
current legislative activity in the 105 Congress.th
Contents
Background .................................................... 1
Expatriation of U.S. citizens.......................................3
Conflicting rights and obligations of dual citizenship.....................6
Laws of Selected Countries........................................9
Mexico .................................................. 10
Israel .................................................... 11
Ireland ................................................... 11
Colombia ................................................. 12
Other Countries............................................12
Legislation in the 105 Congress...................................13th
Appendix
Nationality Treaties in Force for the U.S..........................15
Multilateral Treaties.........................................15
Bilateral Treaties...........................................15
Dual Citizenship
This report provides an overview of the legal requirements for dual citizenship
and some of the issues concerning dual citizenship. There are several potential
problems and issues falling into two categories—first, actions which may result in
expatriation from the U.S., i.e., loss of American citizenship, and second, potentially
conflicting obligations to both countries, e.g., mandatory military service for men,
double income taxation, voting privileges, public office or employment and
repatriation of income from employment or investment abroad. The report will first
discuss the legal basis for dual citizenship, then the expatriation actions, the
potentially conflicting obligations of holding citizenship of the U.S. and another
nation, the dual citizenship laws and legislative activity of selected countries in which
a significant number of U.S. citizens may be eligible for dual citizenship, and finally,
current legislative activity in the 105 Congress.th
Background
Actually, nationality and citizenship are distinct concepts. Citizenship concerns
the political status and rights conferred on a person by a nation, such as the right to1
vote and to hold office. Nationality concerns the status of a person under
international law, i.e., the allegiance which a person owes to a nation and the
protection owed by a nation to a person vis a vis another nation. In the U.S., all
citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens. Nationals by birth who are
citizens are those persons born or presumed to be born in the U.S., born in the
outlying possessions to parents at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen who satisfies
certain conditions precedent, or born outside the U.S. and its possessions to parents
at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen who satisfies certain conditions precedent.2
Nationals by birth who are not citizens are those persons born or presumed to be born
in an outlying possession of the U.S. on or after the date of formal acquisition of the
possession or born to parents at least one of whom is a U.S. national who satisfies
certain conditions precedent. Aside from this distinction, generally the terms seem3
to be used interchangeably, although citizenship is really a subset of nationality.
Therefore, although the U.S. provision concerning loss of nationality is entitled “Loss
of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen,” the courts also appear to have4
used the two terms interchangeably, so the loss of nationality seems to be understood
The American Law Institute, 1 3RD RESTATEMENT OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW1
OF THE UNITED STATES § 211, comment h and reporters’ note 6, § 212 (1986).
usually to mean the loss of citizenship as well where both are involved. Therefore,5
the terms will be used interchangeably in this report.
Dual citizenship can arise in several ways, from naturalization and from two
doctrines of citizenship. Jus soli is the principle that a person acquires citizenship in
a nation by virtue of his birth in that nation or its territorial possessions. Jus6
sanguinis is the principle that a person acquires the citizenship of his parents,
“citizenship of the blood.” A person may acquire dual citizenship by being born in7
the U.S., which recognizes jus soli, to alien parents whose country recognizes jus8
sanguinis, or by being born abroad to U.S. parents. Also, a U.S. citizen may910
become a naturalized citizen of a nation that does not require renunciation of other
allegiances, or a naturalized U.S. citizen may still retain citizenship in a country that
does not recognize renunciation of its citizenship.11
Although the U.S. requires an immigrant to take an oath renouncing allegiance
to any other sovereign power, citizenship and nationality of another nation are really12
determined by the laws of that other nation claiming a person as a citizen and/or as
a national. Therefore, when a naturalized U.S. citizen renounces allegiance to his13
former country, if the laws of that country do not recognize the renunciation, that
person still retains the citizenship of his former country. In deference to the
sovereignty of that other nation, the U.S. generally recognizes the dual citizenship.
Even the U.S. originally did not recognize the right of a citizen to expatriate himself
if he so desired. The original expatriation statute was enacted because of a growing14
The American Law Institute, 1 3rd Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the5
United States § 212, comment c, reporters’ note 4 (1986).
Black’s Law Dictionary 863 (6th Ed. 1990); entry for “jus soli.”6
Id. at 862; entry at “jus sanguinis.”7
Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, § 1, cl. 1.8
E.g., Japan, see Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 131 (1957), and Kawakita v. U.S.,9
true jus sanguinis. Although, as discussed above, a person may acquire citizenship by birth
outside the U.S. and its possessions to parents at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, the
parent must have met certain residency requirements prior to the birth of the person.
The American Law Institute, 1 3RD RESTATEMENT OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW11
OF THE UNITED STATES § 212, reporters’ note 3 (1986).
Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176, 1184-5 (7th Cir. 1980) (The opinion includes a13
discussion of general principles of dual nationality).
Id. and Griffith, Expatriation and the American Citizen, 31 Howard L.J. 453, 455-14
belief in Congress that the rights of citizenship included the right to renounce
citizenship. Some nations still do not permit citizens to renounce citizenship.1516
Expatriation of U.S. citizens
Section 1481 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code enumerates actions which may result
in the expatriation of a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether that person is a citizen by
birth or naturalization. A naturalized citizen could be “denaturalized,” i.e., have his
citizenship revoked by a U.S. court upon a finding that the immigrant committed
fraud or misrepresentation in gaining admission to the U.S. or in obtaining his
citizenship. However, this report will not address this issue since it is separate from17
the expatriation acts in section 1481. Section 1481 includes acts demonstrating an
allegiance to another nation which may be incompatible with allegiance to the U.S.
Those acts include naturalization in a foreign country; taking an oath of allegiance to
a foreign state or one of its political subdivisions; serving in the armed forces of a
hostile foreign state or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the
armed forces of a foreign state; serving in any office, post or employment under a
foreign state’s government, if one is a national of that state; making a formal
renunciation before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign
state; making a formal renunciation in a manner prescribed by the Attorney General18
when the U.S. is at war; and committing treason.
Section 1483 of Title 8 restricts the conditions for expatriation. Except for
treason and formal renunciation in the U.S., a citizen cannot be expatriated while he
is in the U.S. or its possessions. However, acts committed in the U.S. or its
possessions can be grounds for expatriation once the citizen leaves the U.S. and
resides outside it and its possessions. Also, a citizen who asserts his claim to U.S.
citizenship within six months of attaining majority shall not be considered expatriated
as the result of serving in the armed forces of a foreign state or making a formal
renunciation abroad before a U.S. diplomatic or consular official. Section 1489
provides that treaties and conventions ratified by the Senate before December 25,
Griffith, supra note 14, at 455-59.15
The American Law Institute, 1 3RD RESTATEMENT OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW16
OF THE UNITED STATES § 212, reporters’ note 3 (1986).
expatriation of persons who voted in a foreign political election or an election to determine
sovereignty over foreign territory, and subsection (a)(8), regarding the expatriation of persons
who deserted the armed forces in wartime, were repealed by Pub. L. No. 95-432, § 2, 92 Stat.
1046 (1978). Subsection (a)(10), regarding the expatriation of persons who remained outside
the U.S. in wartime to evade military service, was repealed by Pub. L. No. 94-412, Title V,
§ 501(a), 90 Stat. 1258 (1976). Also, former section 1482 of Title 8, repealed by Pub. L. No.
95-432, § 1, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046, provided for the divestiture of U.S. nationality for
dual nationals in certain situations.
nationality solely by reason of her marriage to an alien, regardless of the provisions
of a treaty.
Currently, the mere commission of an act of expatriation enumerated in section
1481, or any other act that may be evidence of expatriation, cannot result in loss of
citizenship unless committed voluntarily and with specific intent. At one time a U.S.
citizen could lose his citizenship by denationalization as well as by expatriation. The19
distinction is that expatriation is a loss of citizenship resulting from an act evincing the
desire and intention of the citizen to renounce his citizenship, while denationalization
is a loss of citizenship resulting from conduct which Congress has decided is contrary
to the national interest and thus should result in a loss of citizenship. While conduct
resulting in denationalization had to be voluntary and not coerced, there was no
requirement of a specific or subjective intention to renounce citizenship. For example,
at one time an American woman could be denationalized by marrying a foreigner.
The woman’s lack of subjective intent to renounce her U.S. citizenship was irrelevant;
if she married voluntarily, she lost her citizenship. One interpretation is that the20
voluntariness of the denationalizing conduct was equivalent to an objective intent to
renounce U.S. citizenship.21
Over the years the United States Supreme Court has moved toward a stricter
interpretation of expatriation. Formerly, the Supreme Court upheld the power of
Congress to denationalize a U.S. citizen, even a citizen by birth. Finally, it reversed22
itself and found that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from legislating23
the automatic loss of citizenship by naturalization or birth in the U.S. merely because24
of certain conduct, without that citizen’s assent. There has been at least one case
which found that Congress could set conditions on the retention of U.S. citizenship
for a person born abroad to parents only one of whom has U.S. citizenship. Since the
person was neither born nor naturalized in the U.S. but merely derived his citizenship
from the parent, he was not protected from denationalization by the Fourteenth
Griffith, supra note 14, at 461-2; Note, Protecting Citizenship: Strengthening the19
Intent Requirement in Expatriation Proceedings, 56 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 341, 343-4 (1988);
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1957).
Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311-12 (1915) (Under the Act of March 2, 1907,20
c. 2534, § 3, 34 Stat. 1228, an American woman citizen who married an alien took the
nationality of her husband and lost her U.S. citizenship).
Griffith, supra note 14, at 461.21
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1957) (The Court held that Congress, pursuant to its22
powers to regulate foreign relations, could provide for the denationalization of a U.S. citizen
who voted in a foreign election in order to avoid embarrassment in the conduct of foreign
relations).
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction23
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Constitution
of the United States, Amendment XIV, § 1, cl. 1.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (Afroyim was a naturalized citizen who24
participated in a foreign election). See also, note 18.
Amendment. More recently, the Supreme Court elaborated on its earlier decision25
in Afroyim by holding that the Government had to prove specific intent to renounce
citizenship. The statutory provisions on expatriation state that the party claiming26
that expatriation occurred must establish the claim by a preponderance of the
evidence. Any act of expatriation, including those enumerated under § 1481, will be
presumed to have been done voluntarily, but the presumption may be rebutted upon
a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or
performed were not done voluntarily. Terrazas upheld the statutory evidentiary
standards as constitutional, but in light of Afroyim and the Fourteenth Amendment,
it required a finding of intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and stated that no
presumption of intent arose from an expatriating act. A finding of intent did not27
require a written, express relinquishment of citizenship. Intent could be found by a
preponderance of the evidence; it could be inferred from conduct that was completely
inconsistent with and derogatory to allegiance to the U.S.28
The courts have interpreted the statutory requirements with regard to several of
the acts of expatriation. Regarding an oath of allegiance and statement of
renunciation, a court has found that signing an oath of allegiance to another country
as part of that country’s naturalization process did not constitute renunciation of U.S.
citizenship in the absence of an explicit renunciation. The courts have found that29
where there is an explicit renunciation or an oath of allegiance accompanied by or
including an explicit renunciation, the requisite specific intent exists and the citizen is
expatriated. On the other hand, at least one district court has found that where a30
person has signed naturalization papers of another country which explicitly renounce
U.S. citizenship, the government has not proved the requisite specific intent where the
citizen can prove that, through gross negligence, he was unaware of the fact that the
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1970). The conditions of residency between the ages25
of fourteen and twenty-eight years for retention of citizenship have since been repealed, Pub.
L. No. 95-432, § 1, 92 Stat. 1046 (1978).
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 260-1 (1980).26
Id .27
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 257, 261-62 (1980), Terrazas v. Haig, 653 F.2d 285,28
United States v. Matheson, 532 F.2d 809 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 82329
(1976). Here, the estate of a woman who had married a Mexican citizen and signed an oath
of allegiance to Mexico claimed that she was not an American citizen for the purposes of
taxation by the U.S. The Court of Appeals said: “Had Mrs. Burns wished to expatriate
herself she could simply have unequivocally stated that she renounced her American
citizenship.” 532 F.2d 809, 816.
Kahane v. Secretary of State, 700 F. Supp. 1162 (D.D.C. 1988) (Israeli-American30
dual citizen renounced U.S. citizenship in order to be eligible to hold office in the Knesset);
Richards v. Secretary of State, 752 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1985) (U.S. citizen took oath of
allegiance to Canada including renunciation of U.S. allegiance as part of naturalization
process in order to gain employment).
naturalization papers contained a renunciation of all other citizenships. While one31
court of appeals has rejected the argument of economic duress in rebuttal of the
presumption of voluntariness of an act, another court of appeals has said that32
economic duress may avoid expatriation, but the citizen’s economic plight must be33
“dire.” A district court has found that holding office in a foreign legislature does not
constitute expatriation in the absence of a specific intent to renounce U.S.
citizenship. Subsequently, the plaintiff in that case lost his U.S. citizenship when the34
laws of the foreign country changed to require single citizenship in order to hold
legislative office. The plaintiff wished to run to retain his office, renounced his U.S.
citizenship but was still unable to run for office for other reasons. His subsequent
attempt to retract his renunciation was deemed ineffective because he had already
voluntarily and effectively renounced U.S. citizenship.35
Administratively, it appears that, since the line of cases holding that a person
must have committed an expatriating act voluntarily and with specific intent to lose
citizenship, the State Department has taken a permissive position with regard to36
whether a person has lost citizenship upon commission of an act. Even taking an
oath of allegiance to a foreign state which renounces allegiance to the United States
is considered strong, but not necessarily conclusive, evidence of intent to relinquish
U.S. citizenship.
Conflicting rights and obligations of dual citizenship
The rights and obligations of a citizenship of another nation may conflict with
U.S. citizenship. As mentioned above at note 18, voting in a foreign political election
is no longer grounds for expatriation. If a U.S. citizen wishes to retain his citizenship
and goes through some form of naturalization process in another nation, he might well
be advised, for example, to take care that no renunciation of U.S. citizenship is
included in any required oath of allegiance.
A U.S. citizen must also be cautious if he or she is considering accepting a
government position in the other country. In recent years, many East-European-
American dual nationals have been going to Eastern Europe to aid in the restructuring
and development of that region. Reportedly, some have been offered positions in the
governments there, but those who definitely wish to retain U.S. citizenship have
turned down those offers because of concern that they would lose U.S. citizenship.
Parness v. Schultz, 669 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1987).31
Richards v. Secretary of State, 752 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1985).32
Stipa v. Dulles, 233 F.2d 551 (3d Cir. 1956).33
Kahane v. Schultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486 (E.D.N.Y. 1987).34
Kahane v. Secretary of State, 700 F. Supp. 1162 (D.D.C. 1988).35
See 7 Foreign Affairs Manual §§ 1208, 1217, and 1262, reprinted at CHARLES36
GORDON AND STANLEY MAILMAN, 17 IMMIGRATION LAW AND PROCEDURE (1998) and
Goldstein and Piazza, infra note 60.
Some are reportedly acting as unofficial, unpaid advisors. A most notable example37
is former Minnesota governor Rudy Perpich who briefly considered the post of
foreign minister in Croatia. Even if no formal renunciation is required as part of38
accepting the foreign position, by not accepting such positions, dual citizens ensure
that no cloud is cast on their U.S. citizenship. In one case, Milan Panic, a naturalized
U.S. citizen who briefly served as Prime Minister in his native Yugoslavia during the
post-communist transition period in the early 1990s, was said to have received39
express permission from the U.S. State Department to retain his U.S. citizenship while40
serving as Prime Minister. U.S. citizenship may have been deemed so inherently
incompatible with holding a high government position in a foreign country, that an
intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship could arguably be found in the act of accepting
such high office. An additional factor in this case was the embargo against the former
Yugoslavia; as a U.S. citizen, Panic had to receive permission from the United States
for travel to Yugoslavia. In an even more recent case, Valdas Adamkus, the current
President of Lithuania, a Baltic state once part of the Soviet Union, was a naturalized
U.S. citizen who had fled his native country more than fifty years ago. After his41
election in Lithuania, he renounced his U.S. citizenship. Reportedly, the Lithuanian
Constitution would have permitted him to retain his U.S. citizenship while serving as
President. However, he had made a campaign promise to renounce his U.S.
citizenship, knowing it would be politically awkward to retain it. He went to the U.S.
Embassy in Vilnius, Lithuania, to turn in his passport, sign a formal renunciation of
U.S. citizenship, and receive a diplomatic visa. It appears that, since Lithuanian laws
permitted him to retain his U.S. citizenship and did not require him to renounce it to
take office, U.S. laws would have permitted him to retain his U.S. citizenship, and
that President Adamkus’ action was not legally required.
If the laws of the other country provide for mandatory military service for young
men, they may conflict with the expatriation provision that service in foreign armed
forces is an expatriating act, even in a friendly country if service is as an officer. A
multilateral Protocol Relating to Military Obligation in Certain Cases of Double
Nationality, to which the U.S. is a party, provides that “[a] person possessing two or
more nationalities who habitually resides in one of the countries whose nationality he
Robert C. Toth, New Ties To The Old Country; Ethnic Pride Has Surged Among37
Americans Of East European Descent; Assistance Has Gone Beyond Financial Support;
Some Have Taken Jobs With The New Governments, LOS ANGELES TIMES, May 14, 1991,
at A1.
Maralee Schwartz, Minnesota Ex-Governor Declines Croatian Post, WASHINGTON38
POST, April 30, 1991, at A5.
Panic says don't use force in Bosnia, USA TODAY, April 29, 1993, at 13A.39
Saul Friedman, 'Belgrade Mafia' Seen Influencing U.S. Policy; Slow Response Tied40
to Scowcroft, Eagleburger, NEWSDAY, August 9, 1992, at 4.
Richard C. Paddock, Lithuania’s President-Elect Gives Up U.S. Citizenship;41
Inauguration: Former EPA Bureaucrat From Chicago Is To Be Sworn In Today As Leader
Of His Native Land, LOS ANGELES TIMES, Feb. 26, 1998, at A4; President-to-be gives up
U.S. citizenship, THE NEWS AND OBSERVER, Feb. 26, 1998, at A11; Lithuanian Returns U.S.
Passport, WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 26, 1998, at A18; Judy Pasternak, American Trades
Retirement for Chance to Lead Lithuania, LOS ANGELES TIMES, Feb. 9, 1998, at A5.
possesses, and who is in fact most closely connected with that country, shall be
exempt from all military obligations in the other country or countries.” Under the42
Protocol, the country in which the national resides and with which he has the closest
ties is considered the country of the dominant nationality. So an American possessing
dual citizenship could be exempt from military service in his other country if it is a
party to the Protocol and if his dominant nationality is American. Article 1 of the
Protocol provides that such an exemption may involve the loss of the non-dominant
nationality. As discussed above, foreign military service is a potentially expatriating
act under current U.S. law. Therefore, an exemption from service in the U.S. military
in favor of obligations in another country could be considered evidence of an intent
to relinquish U.S. citizenship. The U.S. is not a party to the Convention on the
Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of
Multiple Nationality and its Protocols.43
A dual citizen may have conflicting financial obligations to his two countries.
He may be obligated to pay taxes to both of his countries if he has sufficient income.
There are numerous bilateral treaties between the U.S. and other countries to avoid
double taxation but these address situations in which a citizen or national of one party
is domiciled in another party; often they do not address the special issue of the dual
national. The tax laws of the U.S. provide for foreign tax credit and a court has4445
even found that taxes levied by a political subdivision of a country, not by the federal
government, may be credited toward the taxes owed by a U.S. corporation; current46
regulations are consistent with this ruling. Laws governing the repatriation of47
income earned and investment by aliens and dual nationals may differentiate between
the alien and the dual national; the dual national may not be permitted to take as much
money out of the country because he is considered a national with not as much reason
April 12, 1930, 50 Stat. 1317, 2 Bevans 1049, 178 L.N.T.S. 227. Of the selected42
countries discussed below, only Colombia is listed by the Department of State, Office of
Treaty Affairs, Treaties in Force: A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of
the United States in force as of Jan. 1, 1997 (1997) [hereinafter Treaties in Force], as also
being party to the Protocol. Bowman & Harris, MULTILATERAL TREATIES: INDEX AND
CURRENT STATUS 85 (1984) (treaty 129).
May 6, 1963, 634 U.N.T.S. 221.43
For example, the United States has two taxation treaties with Ireland, a country in44
which many Americans hold nationality—Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on the estates of deceased persons, Sept.
13, 1949, 2 U.S.T. 2294, T.I.A.S. 2355, 127 U.N.T.S. 119; and Convention for the avoidance
of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, Sept.
13, 1949, 2 U.S.T. 2303, T.I.A.S. 2356, 127 U.N.T.S. 89. On the other hand, the United
States and Israel, another country in which many Americans hold nationality, do not have any
taxation treaties according to Treaties in Force, supra note 42.
Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Company, 285 U.S. 1 (1931).46
as an alien to remove assets to another country, even if he is a national of that other
country. 48
If there is no treaty to which the U.S. and the particular nation involved are
parties, the U.S. and that nation can negotiate naturalization, tax or military obligation
treaties in which they can resolve any conflicting obligations to make the status, rights
and obligations of dual nationals clear. Historically, treaties of expatriation which
resolved questions of dual nationality have been negotiated with a number of4950
countries; however, some of these have terminated.
Laws of Selected Countries
This section will briefly describe the dual nationality or citizenship laws of
selected countries in which it appears that a significant number of Americans possess
nationality or citizenship. In particular, recent changes in the constitution and federal
statutes of Mexico have received a great deal of attention in the United States, since
those changes were apparently motivated, at least in part, by the effects of recent
immigration law reforms in the United States on Mexican citizens who are permanent
resident aliens in the United States. Additionally, the relevant citizenship and
nationality laws of Israel, Ireland and Colombia will be discussed. The laws discussed
here do not include the naturalization laws, which could result in dual citizenship if
a U.S. citizen chose to apply for naturalization in those countries. Rather, this
discussion focuses on describing those laws which provide for retention of nationality
after naturalization in the United States or for acquisition of nationality by descent,
a sort of jus sanguinis. It has been suggested that the exercise of the rights and
privileges of a prior nationality by a naturalized U.S. citizen, after the date of
naturalization, calls into question the truthfulness of the citizen’s oath of allegiance
to the United States and renunciation of other allegiances, and that therefore, the51
naturalization could be invalidated on the grounds of fraud in the procurement. On
the other hand, since some of the foreign laws provide for reacquisition of native
nationality, it could be argued that persons who take advantage of reacquisition
procedures are not acting differently from native-born U.S. citizens who seek
naturalization in another country.
Conversation with Anton Wekerle, Acting Chief of the Near Eastern and African Law48
Division, Law Library, Library of Congress, June 25, 1991.
Annotation, Expatriation by foreign naturalization or by taking oath of allegiance49
to a foreign state, 15 A.L.R.2d 550, 557 (1951); see also the Appendix to this report.
See the Appendix to report cited above, with reference to the Department of State,50
Office of Treaty Affairs, Treaties in Force. supra note 42.
See Naturalization Requirements and the Rights and Privileges of Citizenship:51
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th
Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 22, 1996) (statement of Dan Stein, Executive Director, Federation for
American Immigration Reform); and Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)
(upholding the revocation of naturalization of a former German citizen on the grounds that his
evident Nazi sympathies indicated that he falsely swore the oath of allegiance renouncing all
other allegiances, including those to Nazi Germany).
Mexico
Recent changes in the constitutional and federal statutory laws of Mexico have
made possible the retention or reclamation of Mexican nationality for former Mexican
citizens who are now naturalized U.S. citizens and for their U.S.-born children. In
December 1996, both chambers of the Mexican federal legislature unanimously passed
amendments to articles 30, 32, and 37 of the Constitución Politica de los Estados
Unidos Mexicanos [Political Constitution of the United Mexican States]. The
effective date of these amendments was March 20, 1998, one year after the date of
publication in the Diario Oficial de la Federación [Official Journal of the Federation].52
Publication occurs upon ratification by a majority of the 31 state legislatures in
Mexico. These amendments made possible the retention of Mexican nationality by
Mexicans who possess the nationality of another country. Such persons can also
transmit Mexican nationality to their children born outside Mexico. Transmission is
limited to persons born outside Mexico to parents one or both of whom are Mexicans
by birth or naturalization in Mexican territory. Only Mexicans with no other
nationality may be appointed or elected to public offices where national security and
sovereignty concerns are implicated. Mexican dual nationals will be able to hold
passports and to own real property in restricted areas. Under Mexican law, foreigners
are prohibited from owning land within 100 kilometers of borders and 50 kilometers
of the coastline. Former Mexican nationals who have already lost their nationality53
through naturalization in another country have five years after the entry in force of the
amendment to initiate the procedure for recovering their Mexican nationality, that is,
until March 3, 2003.
The law implementing the constitutional amendments with respect to dual
nationality was passed by both chambers of the Mexican Congress in December 1997,
published on January 23, 1998, and went into effect on March 20, 1998, the effective
date of the underlying amendments. Mexican law distinguishes between nationality54
and citizenship with regard to the rights enjoyed. Although Mexican dual nationals
will be able to travel and live in Mexico and to own property without restrictions, they
will be exempted from certain obligations and also barred from certain privileges and
rights associated with citizenship. As mentioned above, they will not be allowed to
hold certain public offices. They will not be required to serve in the Mexican armed
The text (in Spanish) of the amendments can be found at the website for the Mexican52
Congress, http://wwwl.cddhcu.gob.mx/. A good explanation in English of the amendments
can be found at in the newsletter at the website for the Mexican Consulate in New York City,
http://www.quicklink.com/mexico/gob97may/notmay97.htm. These links were good as of the
date of this report.
Patrick J. McDonnell and Mark Fineman, Mexico Posed to OK Dual Nationality Law,53
LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dec. 9, 1996, at A3.
The text (in Spanish) of the Ley de Nacionalidad effective March 20, 1998, is54
available in the Lexis-Nexis database, as published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación.
Descriptions in English can be found in the newletter at the website of the Mexican Consulate
in New York City, http://www.quicklink.com/mexico/gob98mar/notmar98.htm#part4, and in
the newsletter at the website of the Mexican Consulate in Austin, Texas,
http://www.onr.com/consulmx/january98-2.html. See also the Press Release of the Embassy
of Mexico on March 19, 1998, available on the Lexis-Nexis database in the wire service file.
forces, but will have to register abroad at consulates or embassies. Significantly, the
right to vote, the primary political right associated with citizenship, has not been
extended to dual nationals by the new laws. Apparently, at the current time there are
no procedures for absentee voting even by those possessing Mexican nationality and55
citizenship who reside outside of Mexico.
According to estimates of the Mexican government, the new dual nationality
laws could affect between 4 to 5.5 million current or former Mexican nationals, of
whom approximately 2.2 million are already naturalized citizens who can now apply
to regain their nationality status and rights. According to at least one expert, there56
approximately 6.6 million U.S.-born children with one or both parents born or
naturalized in Mexico, who could be eligible to apply for Mexican nationality status.57
Israel
The Law of Return in Israel provides for the right of every Jew to immigrate58
to Israel and become an Israeli citizen, unless it is determined that the person is
engaged in activity directed against the Jewish people, may endanger public health or
the security of the state, or has a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare. A
“Jew” is defined as a person born of a Jewish mother or who has converted to
Judaism and is not a member of another religion. An extension has been made to
cover the offspring of intermarriage between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman.
In that case, the right of return is extended to the child and grandchild of a Jew, the
spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew, and the spouse of a grandchild of a
Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.
Ireland
Under the Nationality and Citizenship Acts of 1956 and 1986, a person born59
outside Ireland may acquire Irish nationality by descent transmitted up to three
generations down from the person born in Ireland. A person born outside Ireland,
whose mother or father was born in Ireland and was an Irish citizen at the time of his
birth, is automatically an Irish citizen. A person whose grandfather or grandmother
See Press Release, supra note 54.55
Mark Fineman and Patrick J. McDonnell, Dual Nationality Will Have To Wait56
Officials Say; Complexity of Creating New Legal Category For Millions Of Expatriates Is
To Blame, Experts Declare, LOS ANGELES TIMES, December 12, 1996, at A17; Mark
Fineman, Lawmakers In Mexico Approve Dual Nationality, LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dec. 11,
Patrick K. McDonnell, Mexico Delays Dual-Nationality Plan 1 Year, LOS ANGELES57
TIMES, March 6, 1997, at A3, citing Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute.
The text of this law (in English) is available at a website of the Israeli government,58
gopher://israel-info.gov.il:70/00/constit/laws/bas.12, and a summary is available at another
website, gopher://israel-info.gov.il:70/00/constit/laws/national.leg; these websites were active
as of the date of this report.
A summary description of the law is available at the website of the Irish government,59
http://www.irlgov.ie/justice/Publications/Citizenship/IrishCitizens.htm.
was born in Ireland, but whose parents were not, may acquire Irish citizenship by
registering in the Foreign Births Register at a consulate or embassy of Ireland or at
the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, Ireland. A person whose great-
grandfather or great-grandmother was born in Ireland but whose grandparents and
parents were not, may register for Irish citizenship, provided that a parent eligible to
register for Irish citizenship as the grandchild of a native Irish citizen actually
registered prior to that person’s birth.
Colombia
Since amendments in 1991, article 96 of the Constitucion Política [Political
Constitution] of Colombia provides that a native Colombian cannot be stripped of60
his nationality. Colombian nationality is not lost by acquiring another nationality by
naturalization. Naturalized Colombians are not obligated to renounce other
nationalities in order to become Colombians. Colombians who previously lost their
nationality by naturalization in another country are provided the opportunity to
reacquire Colombian nationality.
Other Countries
In addition to the existing laws of the countries discussed above and others, such61
as Turkey and Italy, there has been political pressure in several countries, including
Korea and Germany, to liberalize nationality laws in a way that would permit or
promote dual nationality. However, in Korea, plans for legislation that would permit
dual nationality have been put on hold due to concerns expressed by China about the62
split loyalties of the sizeable population of ethnic Koreans in China. In Germany,
liberalizing nationality laws became a contentious issue in the elections there. Most
of the political parties apparently support liberalization which would permit non-
ethnic Germans born in Germany to become German nationals automatically without
having to apply for naturalization, but one conservative party is vehemently opposed
and another party is split on the issue.63
The text (in Spanish) is available at a website,60
http://www.georgetown.edu/LatAmerPolitical/Constitutions/Colombia/colombia.html. A
description (in English) of the dual nationality provisions of article 96 is provided by Eugene
Goldstein and Victoria Piazza, Naturalization, Dual Citizenship and Retention of Foreign
Citizenship: A Survey, 73 Interpreter Releases No. 16, April 22, 1996.
Goldstein and Piazza, supra note 60.61
Beijing urges Seoul to refrain from enacting citizenship law, BBC SUMMARY OF62
WORLD BROADCASTS, September 23, 1998; Special Law Grants Koreans Overseas
Enhanced Legal Status, THE KOREA HERALD, Aug. 25, 1998.
Imre Karacs, Germany’s ‘guests’ fight for the vote; German election: Rivals head63
for a photo-finish — but millions of workers won’t have a say in the final outcome, THE
INDEPENDENT, Sept. 23, 1998.
Legislation in the 105 Congressth
In the 105 Congress there has been only one piece of legislation which refersth64
to dual citizenship, although there has been some interest in revisiting the issue of
permitting dual nationality under U.S. laws in light of the recent Mexican legislation,65
the relatively recent Colombian legislation, an increasing trend of Irish-Americans
acquiring Irish nationality, and other harbingers of a global trend toward66
liberalization of dual nationality laws. These foreign laws and foreign legislative
activity potentially could have a particular impact on the United States, traditionally
perceived as a nation of immigrants. On the one hand, concern has been expressed
in the media and elsewhere about split loyalties and protecting the national interests
of the United States in the face of the growing numbers of Americans who hold the
nationality of other countries, regardless of whether those other countries are67
perceived as friendly to the United States or not. These concerns are reflected in
some of the current policies in the federal government. In one reported instance, a
renewal of security clearance was denied to a government employee when he
informed authorities that he had acquired Irish nationality and possessed an Irish68
passport. On the other hand, other opinion accepts dual nationality as a natural
occurrence for a nation of immigrants and embrace the advantages of strong ties to
the native or ancestral countries of Americans. In the middle are those69
H. J. Res. 115 proposes a constitutional amendment which would resolve an apparent64
boundary dispute between the United States and Canada by the U.S. relinquishment of claims
and which includes a provision that the residents of the contested territory would possess
U.S.—Canadian dual citizenship.
Bruce Finley, Hearts torn between old, new worlds; Many immigrants lead ‘two-65
track’ lives in U.S., THE DENVER POST, Aug. 23, 1998, at A-01.
Sean Somerville, Going beyond wearing green; Citizenship: Thousands of Americans66
mark St. Patrick’s Day as dual citizens of Ireland and the United States, THE BALTIMORE
SUN, March 17, 1998, at 1A. According to the article, 14,000 Americans have acquired Irish
citizenship over the past ten years, the highest number in any decade since the Irish law
permitting dual citizenship was passed in 1956, and the majority of those did so over the last
five years.
G. Pascal Zachary, Demographics: Dual Citizenship Is Double-Edged Sword, WALL67
STREET JOURNAL, March 25, 1998, at B1.
Joe Carroll, U.S. Official Must Waive Irish Papers For Security, THE IRISH TIMES,68
April 8, 1998, at 7. U.S. Department of Defense regulation 5200, 2-R, apparently provides
that the exercise of dual citizenship, such as the possession of a foreign passport, is a
disqualifying factor in the denial or revocation of security clearance.
The press reports cited above concerning Valdus Adamkus and Milan Panic suggested69
that these leaders would be sympathetic or supportive of American interests in their native
countries, or at least that they would be perceived as such. See also, Matthew Brzezinski,
Lithania’s New Leader, An American, Presents A Problem For U.S.—Russian Ties, WALL
STREET JOURNAL, Jan. 6, 1998, at A14 (expresses view that Russia is likely to consider the
Lithuanian President as a U.S. client).
commentators who perceive neither a particular threat or benefit in the dual
nationality of U.S. citizens.70
In addition, a recent high profile criminal case illustrated one of the problems that
can be caused by dual nationality. An American man, wanted by Maryland authorities
for a homicide, fled to Israel and claimed U.S.—Israeli dual nationality through his
father. Because Israeli extradition laws apparently prohibit the extradition of an71
Israeli national, lengthy delays and legal wrangling have resulted from the man’s claim
of dual nationality.
Peter H. Schuck and Peter J. Spiro, Dual Citizens, Good Americans, WALL STREET70
JOURNAL, March 18, 1998, at A22.
Joyce Price, Fugitive’s citizenship raises questions, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Oct.71
Appendix
Nationality Treaties in Force for the U.S.
Multilateral Treaties
concluded April 12, 1930, in force May 25, 1937, 50 Stat. 1317, T.S. 913, 2
Bevans 1049, 178 L.N.T.S. 227.
2.Convention on the Nationality of Women, concluded Dec. 26, 1933, in force
Aug. 29, 1934, 49 Stat. 2957, T.S. 875, 3 Bevans 141.
Bilateral Treaties
U.S.—Bulgaria, 43 Stat. 1759, T.S. 684, 5 Bevans 1083, 25 L.N.T.S. 238.
signed Jan. 27, 1939, in force Oct. 3, 1939, U.S.—Finland, 54 Stat. 1712, T.S.
3.Agreement relating to the fulfillment of military obligations during the wars of
1914-1918 and 1939-1945 by persons with dual nationality, signed and in force
Dec. 22, 1948, U.S.—France, 62 Stat. 3621, T.I.A.S. 1876, 7 Bevans 1294, 67
U.N.T.S. 38. Extension signed Nov. 18, 1952 , in force Dec. 31, 1952, 3 U.S.T.
4.Treaty relating to exemption from military service or other act of allegiance of
persons having dual nationality, signed Nov. 1, 1930, in force Feb. 11, 1931,
U.S.—Norway, 46 Stat. 2904, T.S. 832, 10 Bevans 502, 112 L.N.T.S. 399.
5.Convention relating to exemption from military service of persons having dual
nationality, signed Jan. 31, 1933, in force May 20, 1935, U.S.—Sweden, 49
Stat. 3195, T.S. 890, 11 Bevans 778, 159 L.N.T.S. 261.
6.Convention relative to military obligations of certain persons having dual
nationality, signed Nov. 11, 1937, in force Dec. 7, 1938, U.S.—Switzerland,