From: jock@soccer.com   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:28:04 -0500, Stephen Sprunk   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 23-Jun-14 22:17, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>> On 23-Jun-14 19:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >The principle is that nationality is too sacred to be exchanged for   
   >_anything_ another country might offer, including the nationality of   
   >that other country.   
   >   
   >Yes, there are also tax implications in the US, but AFAIK that doesn't   
   >apply to _any_ other country with the same rule.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >I know dual citizens from at least a dozen other countries; in fact, of   
   >all the immigrants I know, I'm only aware of _one_ who doesn't still   
   >have his birth nationality, and that was voluntary on his part.  Unlike   
   >the US, none of those other countries claim the right to tax their   
   >nationals' foreign earnings, so that's obviously not why they ignored   
   >the renunciation included in the US oath of citizenship.   
   >   
   >>> There are indeed exceptions.  A former coworker from Canada kept   
   >>> getting hassled during business trips to the US and was eventually   
   >>> denied entry.   
   >>   
   >> Why?   
   >   
   >He was visiting the US often enough and/or for long enough that they   
   >suspected his visits were "work" rather than "business meetings" as he   
   >claimed.  Those are very different under immigration law; the latter is   
   >okay under a tourist visa (or visa waiver), but the former is not.   
   >   
   >S   
      
   Though if he was a permanent resident of Canada or a citizen, there   
   are "applicable" rules under NAFTA to cover that... but the devil as   
   always is in the details of his situation!   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)