Global Entry - Dual Citizenship
#61
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
It has to be a willful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact that affects one's eligibility to become a citizen.
Here is the relevant section of the Department of Homeland Security Policy Manual:
Here is the relevant section of the Department of Homeland Security Policy Manual:
Governments are no saints, and sometimes that kind of anti-saint-like extreme extrajudicial pressure alienates people enough to set them on a course to become a monster of sorts.
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
#63
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,479
Before the court was the specific issue of whether certain misrepresentations or concealments made by Kungys in connection with his naturalization proceeding were material within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Specifically, whether false statements with concerning date and place of birth, wartime occupations, and wartime residence were material within the meaning of the statute.
The court held that the test of whether concealments or misrepresentations were material is whether they had a natural tendency to influence the decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The court then determined that the misrepresentation of the date and place of his birth in the naturalization petition was not material, since those facts by themselves were not relevant to the petitioner's qualifications for citizenship.
The case was then remanded to determine whether the other misrepresentations constituted "false testimony for the purpose of obtaining" immigration or naturalization benefits.
If you can cite a United States Supreme Court case defining material misrepresentations or concealments differently for the purpose of revoking one's citizenship, I'll be more than happy to read it.
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
The Supreme Court of the United States set forth a clear test of what constitutes willful and false misrepresentation or concealment.
Before the court was the specific issue of whether certain misrepresentations or concealments made by Kungys in connection with his naturalization proceeding were material within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Specifically, whether false statements with concerning date and place of birth, wartime occupations, and wartime residence were material within the meaning of the statute.
The court held that the test of whether concealments or misrepresentations were material is whether they had a natural tendency to influence the decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The court then determined that the misrepresentation of the date and place of his birth in the naturalization petition was not material, since those facts by themselves were not relevant to the petitioner's qualifications for citizenship.
The case was then remanded to determine whether the other misrepresentations constituted "false testimony for the purpose of obtaining" immigration or naturalization benefits.
If you can cite a United States Supreme Court case defining material misrepresentations or concealments differently for the purpose of revoking one's citizenship, I'll be more than happy to read it.
Before the court was the specific issue of whether certain misrepresentations or concealments made by Kungys in connection with his naturalization proceeding were material within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Specifically, whether false statements with concerning date and place of birth, wartime occupations, and wartime residence were material within the meaning of the statute.
The court held that the test of whether concealments or misrepresentations were material is whether they had a natural tendency to influence the decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The court then determined that the misrepresentation of the date and place of his birth in the naturalization petition was not material, since those facts by themselves were not relevant to the petitioner's qualifications for citizenship.
The case was then remanded to determine whether the other misrepresentations constituted "false testimony for the purpose of obtaining" immigration or naturalization benefits.
If you can cite a United States Supreme Court case defining material misrepresentations or concealments differently for the purpose of revoking one's citizenship, I'll be more than happy to read it.
Seeking or maintaining dual/multiple citizenships has its utility; but it also may have its complications -- good or bad -- depending on the circumstances applicable to some US dual-citizens applying for GE or who are members of GE. The applicant's information provided, or not provided, and the use of that information or omission, could have unexpected consequence for some claimed dual-citizens, be they US dual-citizens or other dual-citizens applying for GE or seeking to maintain GE status. Governments aren't saints, so some dual-citizens may want to make sure, proverbially-speaking, to cross each and every "t" and dot each and every "i" in the way that best makes sense for the individual and do so by getting their own appropriate legal counsel on these matters -- not that all such lawyers are going to necessarily be informed (or care) about each and every administrative, judicial or extrajudicial possibility that may hit dual-citizens.
#65
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,479
I have no ideal what you are referring to. My Google search produced no relevant results.
Until you direct me to court opinions or DOJ or DHS guidelines or policies that are contrary to what I have stated above, I stand by what I have written on the subject.
Until you direct me to court opinions or DOJ or DHS guidelines or policies that are contrary to what I have stated above, I stand by what I have written on the subject.
#66
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
I stand by what you have written on the subject too, just as I stand by what I have written on the subject.
#67
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,479
#68
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Of course, and just because it may work out or not work out in the Courts, doesn't mean the Executive Branch won't attempt things that may or may not work out in court. Look at the DOJ's mishandling of people that are actually US dual-citizens (or perhaps just US citizens) but were not recognized as US citizens by the US due to DOJ's misunderstanding or whatever about what legitimated means in the context of non-US-born children with some US derivative citizenship. Reference to the matter of O.S. CROSS this month.
Seeking or maintaining dual/multiple citizenships has its utility; but it also may have its complications -- good or bad -- depending on the circumstances applicable to some US dual-citizens applying for GE or who are members of GE. The applicant's information provided, or not provided, and the use of that information or omission, could have unexpected consequence for some claimed dual-citizens, be they US dual-citizens or other dual-citizens applying for GE or seeking to maintain GE status. Governments aren't saints, so some dual-citizens may want to make sure, proverbially-speaking, to cross each and every "t" and dot each and every "i" in the way that best makes sense for the individual and do so by getting their own appropriate legal counsel on these matters -- not that all such lawyers are going to necessarily be informed (or care) about each and every administrative, judicial or extrajudicial possibility that may hit dual-citizens.
Seeking or maintaining dual/multiple citizenships has its utility; but it also may have its complications -- good or bad -- depending on the circumstances applicable to some US dual-citizens applying for GE or who are members of GE. The applicant's information provided, or not provided, and the use of that information or omission, could have unexpected consequence for some claimed dual-citizens, be they US dual-citizens or other dual-citizens applying for GE or seeking to maintain GE status. Governments aren't saints, so some dual-citizens may want to make sure, proverbially-speaking, to cross each and every "t" and dot each and every "i" in the way that best makes sense for the individual and do so by getting their own appropriate legal counsel on these matters -- not that all such lawyers are going to necessarily be informed (or care) about each and every administrative, judicial or extrajudicial possibility that may hit dual-citizens.
Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 27, 2015 at 4:19 pm
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
#70
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1
It looks like the process is different depending on which officer you deal with at the GE center.
I recently became naturalized and changed my Green Card info to US passport. The officer asked about dual citizenship since my German passport was listed, which I truthfully answered that I have kept my German citizenship.
He raised his eyebrows and told me (not very friendly) that I renounced my German citizenship when I became naturalized. So he deleted my German passport details and now there are only the US details in the GOES system. I didn't argue the issue as it seems irrelevant - I will never enter the country with the German passport in hand anyway.
If any immigration officer asks about it, I can tell him my friendly encounter.
I recently became naturalized and changed my Green Card info to US passport. The officer asked about dual citizenship since my German passport was listed, which I truthfully answered that I have kept my German citizenship.
He raised his eyebrows and told me (not very friendly) that I renounced my German citizenship when I became naturalized. So he deleted my German passport details and now there are only the US details in the GOES system. I didn't argue the issue as it seems irrelevant - I will never enter the country with the German passport in hand anyway.
If any immigration officer asks about it, I can tell him my friendly encounter.
#71
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9
In my case it took a few months because I live in a location that does not do interviews, and I had to coordinate business trips and layovers to finally end up in DFW at the same time as an interview opening. Before that, the approval process too several weeks...3 or so.
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
It looks like the process is different depending on which officer you deal with at the GE center.
I recently became naturalized and changed my Green Card info to US passport. The officer asked about dual citizenship since my German passport was listed, which I truthfully answered that I have kept my German citizenship.
He raised his eyebrows and told me (not very friendly) that I renounced my German citizenship when I became naturalized. So he deleted my German passport details and now there are only the US details in the GOES system. I didn't argue the issue as it seems irrelevant - I will never enter the country with the German passport in hand anyway.
If any immigration officer asks about it, I can tell him my friendly encounter.
I recently became naturalized and changed my Green Card info to US passport. The officer asked about dual citizenship since my German passport was listed, which I truthfully answered that I have kept my German citizenship.
He raised his eyebrows and told me (not very friendly) that I renounced my German citizenship when I became naturalized. So he deleted my German passport details and now there are only the US details in the GOES system. I didn't argue the issue as it seems irrelevant - I will never enter the country with the German passport in hand anyway.
If any immigration officer asks about it, I can tell him my friendly encounter.
CBP hires a lot of former US military personnel. And plenty of US citizens with a history of being stationed in Germany for the US military under SOFA (or of being affiliated with and talking about this with those who have been there under SOFA) have been under the impression that Germany requires German citizens to surrender German citizenship if naturalizing in another country, specifically if naturalizing to become a US citizen.
But all that said, look at the current naturalization oath:
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/...states-america
While there are certain allowances for waivers or modifications in the oath, there is no such thing allowed when it comes to renunciation of foreign allegiance for those required to take the oath to become naturalized.
Whether or not the foreign state acknowledges such naturalization as an act of renunciation, well that may vary. Some countries that used to prohibit dual-citizenship but now allow for dual-citizenship have allowances for their former citizens who naturalized abroad to rather easily re-attain their former citizenship. Talk about a roundabout way to deal with such naturalization oaths.
Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 13, 2015 at 5:23 am
#73
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 33
In fact, when aliens naturalize here, they are required to renounce their former nationality.
Also, when Americans naturalize abroad, they lose their US citizenship.
Unless something has recently changed?
#74
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,479
That's is incorrect.
In 1967 the Supreme Court held, in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, that Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent a voluntary renunciation.
In 1967 the Supreme Court held, in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, that Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent a voluntary renunciation.
#75
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,008
The only way to lose US citizenship if you're American born is to formally renounce it. The only way to lose US citizenship if you're foreign born (naturalized) is to be found to have lied on your naturalization application, or failing that, formally renounce it.