From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 23-Jun-14 19:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   >>>OTOH, it calls into question why we have a different status for   
   >>>LPRs in the first place; just make them US nationals and then apply   
   >>>a more sensible process to _all_ of them.   
      
   >>Change of allegiance, which is what nationalization means, is a much   
   >>bigger deal than immigrating. Rejecting your home nation by   
   >>renouncing your citizenship is huge.   
      
   >Or maybe it's nothing, depending on the other country.   
      
   >The US does not recognize renunciation of US nationality unless it is   
   >done freely in front of a US consular official (or due to voluntary   
   >service in another nation's armed forces).  In particular, we reject any   
   >renunciation done as a condition of gaining another nationality, e.g. as   
   >part of an oath of citizenship.   
      
   I think that's an income tax thing.   
      
   >Many other countries have the same standard, which is how many US   
   >immigrants (and emigrants) end up with dual nationality.   
      
   As I was looking it up, residents of the three "compact of free association"   
   states can indeed end up with dual nationality. Micronesia requires   
   renunciation between the 18th and 21st birthday for those with dual   
   nationality by birth.   
      
   >There are indeed exceptions.  A former coworker from Canada kept getting   
   >hassled during business trips to the US and was eventually denied entry.   
      
   Why?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)