Originally Posted by
TWA884
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.
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.