She Wolf Loc: Currently Georgia

It is just my opinion, dual citizenship should not be allowed. Either you are an American or you are not. How can anyone be a good citizen of two countries? The well being of one will be more important than the other should the two come into conflict.

Before becoming a naturalized citizen immigrants take the following oath: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiances and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."

Seems pretty simply. One person, one country. Yet, this is not the case. In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned a law stating a person who is a national of the U.S., weather by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by v****g in a political e******n in a foreign state.

There is no real tally of the number of U.S. citizens who possess dual citizenship. In 1998, when it became possible to have dual Mexican and U.S. citizenship, there was a surge of Mexican immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship. Why not? They did not give up one thing. If things get bad in the U.S. you can return to Mexico.

To me this is a silly law. You are either an American or you are not. Citizenship should be an allegiance to the U.S.A. Dual citizenship regardless of the other country involved undermines an undivided America. You should be proud of your heritage but committed to the well being of the U.S. If your loyalties belong to another country, you should remain a citizen of that country.

How can we trust people with dual citizenship to place this country first, should the other country be in conflict with the U.S. ? We should all be Americans first. If you want citizenship in this country, you should surrender citizenship in any other country.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Agree mostly and this use to be simple. American dad or mom, a child declared at 18 which country they would become a citizen of. Today we have females coming to this country to give birth and it makes that child an American, that stupid law needs to be changed or just plain dropped.

She Wolf Loc: Currently Georgia

I agree. The abuse of that ridiculous law is astounding. The laws must be changed.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

China is a big abuser of this, something like 100,000 single females come to this country to give birth because of the law.

http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

:thumbup: :thumbup: The sooner the better.

robmull Loc: florida

The sooner the better for the "anchor" baby crap, lpn..., and NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP. American or GONE!!!

pafret Loc: Northeast

***********************************

The dual citizen issue has been the subject of several challenges. The one that did the damage is this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

The impact of Afroyim v. Rusk was narrowed by a later case, Rogers v. Bellei (1971), in which the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment safeguarded citizenship only when a person was born or naturalized in the United States, and that Congress retained authority to regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the United States to an American parent. However, the specific law at issue in Rogers v. Bellei—a requirement for a minimum period of U.S. residence that Bellei had failed to satisfy—was repealed by Congress in 1978. As a consequence of revised policies adopted in 1990 by the United States Department of State, it is now (in the words of one expert) "virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it."

The Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim's favor in a 5–4 decision issued on May 29, 1967. The opinion of the Court—written by Associate Justice Hugo Black, and joined by Chief Justice Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas and Abe Fortas—as well as Associate Justice Brennan, who had been part of the majority in Perez—was grounded in the reasoning Warren had used nine years earlier in his Perez dissent. The court's majority now held that "Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Specifically repudiating Perez, the majority of the justices rejected the claim that Congress had any power to revoke citizenship and said that "no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty". Instead, quoting from the Citizenship Clause, Black wrote:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States...." There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.”

However, the Supreme Court used a narrow view that the Constitution does not specify how to deprive a person of citizenship. They did not take into consideration that the individual had de facto renounced his citizenship by v****g in another countries e******n. A naturalized citizen, after having sworn an oath of allegiance, to the US, specifically abjuring any connection to a foreign sovereignty, cannot retain allegiance to other powers. The situation is different for people born here, they did not swear such an oath and cannot be deprived of citizenship except by voluntarily relinquishing it. If they v**e in other countries it may be a criminal act there, but it is not a US crime.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

I kind agree with you. How can people be loyal to two different countries?

trucksterbud

One thing that most Americans - or U.S. Citizens- are blissfully unaware of is this: If you have been roped into being a US Citizen, you are a s***e to the CORPORATION. This corporation is known as THE UNITED STATES INCORPORATED and has been running things since the year 1871, when congress of that day first passed THE ACT OF 1871 thereby - and without any authority wh**ever - created an entirely separate form of "government"..!! It isn't really even a government - its a corporation with properties, assets, and yes dear ones - s***es.

If you would like to research this fact its really easy to do. Just type in UNITED STATES INCORPORATED or Aricles of Incorporation for the United States and you will find the sheeple of this country have been lied to and bamboozled for about 143 years. The UNITED STATES INCORPORATED has NO VALID AUTHORITY outside of Washington, District of Crooks ( or District of Criminals ) by its own charter. All of this lately activity of said corporation - the TSA, Homeland Security, CIA (C*******m in America), FBI, and on and on, have been erected soley to "PROTECT" the ten square mile area of the gang of criminals.

If you were born on American soil, alebiet one of the soverign states, then you were born a free and soverign citizen. By your own declaration you became a s***e to the corporation by selecting - U.S. Citizenship. Now you are a Citizen of Washington, DC - allowed to live in one of the several states. In t***h, if the people knew and understood what has happened, there would be such a massive uprising by morning that all the police and military couldn't stop it. And any police and military that were really doing their job would be on the side of the people. Politicians would 'hang by the neck till dead' from the trees surrounding the Congressional halls and the WH.