 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsAustralia and NZCanadaUSAUSA Marriage Base ImmigrationKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Immigration Forum / Australia and NZ / March 2005Foreign prison sentences and Australian citizenship
Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of themselves with the money, both evidently wore their distinctive work uniforms to the robbery. Christened by the Aussie media as "Dumb and Dumber", one was from Australia, and the other New Zealand, so it appears they've managed to disgrace all of Australasia. If they do end up spending 25 years in a US prison, will they be considered naturalised in the US ... and hence have to re apply for their Aussie/NZ citizenship?  Signatureto email me remove the word "NOT" from my addy #politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!) #political_forum irc.undernet.org "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill >Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put >their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Aussie/NZ citizenship? > Troll Good riddance anyway ! Get them into the Marines and shovel'em to Iraq ... Cannon fodder ! That 's all they're worth ! SignatureSir Jean-Paul Turcaud Exploration Geologist Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer, Kintyre & Nifty Mines The Great Sandy Desert of Australia Founder of the True Geology Mobile +33 (0)6 68 99 43 84 ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~ >>Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put >>their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Troll On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:34:51 -0600, texan.usenet wrote: >>Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put >>their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > Troll ?? Gee, can barely open your mouth without upsetting somebody these days. Signatureto email me remove the word "NOT" from my addy #politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!) #political_forum irc.undernet.org "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill > Gee, can barely open your mouth without putting your foot in it. If you say so. >If they do end up spending 25 years in a US prison, will they be >considered naturalised in the US ... and hence have to re apply for their >Aussie/NZ citizenship? > USA cannot unilaterally strip a person of of the citizenship of another nation. It is the person who has to renounce his or her original citizenship in exchange for US citizenship. A nation is only likely to accept a renunciation of citizenship if it does not tolerate its citizens having dual citizenship. Presumably you renounce your original citizenship for US citizenship purposes by surrendering your original passport and declining to acts generally reserved for citizens such as voting or standing for public office. If you assert your original citizenship you presumably are deemed to be no longer a US citizen. I do not see USA granting citizenship by virtue of serving a long stretch in one of its jails. Also there is no combined Aussie / NZ citizenship. The two are quite separate except that citizenship of either nation automatically (in most cases - main exception being a serious criminal record) entitles residency in the other. There is no requirement that NZ citizenship is lost after a long absence from NZ nd AFAIK the same for Australia. It is doubtful that civilized nations would strip citizenship (especialy by birth) because of a long absence where the person has not gained or is not entitled any other citizenship. >>If they do end up spending 25 years in a US prison, will they be >>considered naturalised in the US ... and hence have to re apply for their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >your original citizenship you presumably are deemed to be no longer a >US citizen. ???????????????????? Where on earth did you come up with the above? >I do not see USA granting citizenship by virtue of serving a long >stretch in one of its jails. No way Jose can it happen. As soon as they due to be released, they will be released into the custody of the BCIS and deported. Both will never be able to enter the US again. >Also there is no combined Aussie / NZ citizenship. > The two are quite separate except that citizenship of either nation automatically (in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of a long absence where the person has not gained or is not entitled >any other citizenship. There are countries where you can loose your aquired citizenship by being absent for a number of years. Cath >>USA cannot unilaterally strip a person of of the citizenship of >>another nation. It is the person who has to renounce his or her [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >???????????????????? >Where on earth did you come up with the above? I cannot 'cite' every aspect of this but: 1. AFAIK the USA does does not tolerate its citizens holding citizenship of other nations (but do not confuse citizenship with residency). 2. It follows that if a citizen of another nation wishes to take up citizenship of the USA the citizen would need to renounce the former citizenship as best as he or she is able. 3. If follows further that if the person takes up foreign citizenship again then AFAIK that person is deemed to renounce USA citizenship. Acts such as obtaining a passport from or voting in the elections of another country are obvious signs of exercising citizenship of another country (agreed, some countries like NZ allow residents who are not citizens to vote, but this would not necessarily stop the USA of using this as citizenship evidence). 4. Also note that some years ago, a NZer by birth sought to renounce citizenship in protest at Government actions, but was refused on the grounds that it would render him stateless. >>I do not see USA granting citizenship by virtue of serving a long >>stretch in one of its jails. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >custody of the BCIS and deported. Both will never be able to >enter the US again. Of course. >There are countries where you can loose your aquired citizenship by >being absent for a number of years. Agreed, that is their business. The emphasis here is 'acquired' the logic being that the person is generally entitled to return to his or her country of birth or that the person has citizenship in or is entitled to indefinite residence in. A total citizenship 'lockout' is possible where citizenship expires, but seems unlikely in practice at least with respect to countries who respect human rights. > I cannot 'cite' every aspect of this but: > 1. AFAIK the USA does does not tolerate its citizens holding > citizenship of other nations That's a commonly held belief, but it's not true. It did have some truth at one time. However, Supreme Court decisions starting in 1967 as well as State Department policy changes have made dual citizenship (the holding of more than one citizenship) open to US citizens. In particular: A US citizen can be born with both US citizenship and another citizenship, and the US has no problem with him keeping both citizenships. A US citizen can acquire another citizenship and he will not lose his US citizenship unless his intention was to give up US citizenship. The US does have a "renunciatory statement" in its naturalization oath, but if the person's original country does not view that statement as having any effect under its laws, then the person is also a dual citizen. > 2. It follows that if a citizen of another nation wishes to take up > citizenship of the USA the citizen would need to renounce the former > citizenship as best as he or she is able. The only renunciation required is the renunciatory statement in the naturalization oath. But, if the person's original country does not view that statement as having any effect under its laws, then the person does not have to take any further steps to attempt to renounce his original citizenship. So, for example, if a naturalized citizen's country doesn't view the US renunciatory statement as having any effect under their laws, but they do have a renunciatory procedure that the person could manually undertake, the US does NOT require that person do manually perform any procedure. They only require the renunciatory statement in the US naturalization process. When the original country refuses to let go, and many do, that person can continue to hold his original passport, and use it abroad. He must deal with the US as a US citizen, and obey all the laws that apply to any US citizen. > 3. If follows further that if the person takes up foreign citizenship > again then AFAIK that person is deemed to renounce USA citizenship. No. Not unless his intention was to renounce US citizenship. If his intention was to keep US citizenship then he keeps it. > Acts such as obtaining a passport from or voting in the elections of > another country are obvious signs of exercising citizenship of another > country (agreed, some countries like NZ allow residents who are not > citizens to vote, but this would not necessarily stop the USA of using > this as citizenship evidence). None of these will cause loss of US citizenship. Voting in foreign elections cause loss of citizenship at one time, but that law was declared unconstitutional in 1967, and in fact, that case Afroyim v. Rusk, is what lead to the interpretation of the law so that the prohibitions on dual citizenship have been eliminated. The following website describes the US policy on dual citizenship with references to the various US laws and cases that led to the current policy. http://www.richw.org/dualcit/ Stephen Gallagher >None of these will cause loss of US citizenship. Voting in >foreign elections cause loss of citizenship at one time, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Stephen Gallagher Thanks for the elucidation. I know a NZ'er who has lived in USA for many years and married to a born USA citizen but who has never taken up US citizenship probably because of the 'renounce' part of the declaration. Perhaps the time has come for USA to 'get real' and remove this from its declaration. > Thanks for the elucidation. I know a NZ'er who has lived in USA for > many years and married to a born USA citizen but who has never taken > up US citizenship probably because of the 'renounce' part of the > declaration. Perhaps the time has come for USA to 'get real' and > remove this from its declaration. Given the fact that one country can't force another country to withdraw its citizenship from a person, and the fact that US citizens can hold dual citizenship in other circumstances you're probably correct on the comment that the US should scrap the renunciatory clause altogether. But, given the current state of world affairs, and the political makeup in Washington, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. The statement has too much symbolism, even if it doesn't actually cause loss of a person's original citizenship. There are many people in the US who mistakenly believe that US citizens can't be dual citizens. This is primarily because the US did have restrictions on dual citizenship at one time. Most of the restrictions were overturned in court, so the government has begrudgingly accepted that it exists and they accept that some US citizens are also citizens of other countries. They don't encourage it, but they don't discourage it either. Many US government documents are even written in versions of "legalese" that will leave the average reader with the impression that dual citizenship is not allowed: For example: Inside a US passport it says that a person MAY lose his US citizenship by performing certain actions, like naturalizing in another country, etc. The reason it says that a person "may lose" and not "will lose" is because loss of citizenship when performing one of these actions requires an intention to give up citizenship. But, they don't mention the fact that an intention is required, nor do they mention that the standard presumption is that a person intends to keep citizenship. So, the average person reading that message will interprets it as "will lose citizenship". When you combine that with the fact that the US still has its renuncitory statement for naturalized citizens, it results in many people still believing that dual citizenship is not allowed in the US. Stephen Gallagher > Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put > their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of > themselves with the money, both evidently wore their distinctive work > uniforms to the robbery. They sound about as intelligent as Joe Fivepack. > Christened by the Aussie media as "Dumb and Dumber", one was from > Australia, and the other New Zealand, so it appears they've managed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > considered naturalised in the US ... and hence have to re apply for their > Aussie/NZ citizenship? Why? Does your Australian citizenship lapse when you've been out of the country for a certain period of time? Don't think so. >> Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put >> their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of >> themselves with the money, both evidently wore their distinctive work >> uniforms to the robbery. > > They sound about as intelligent as Joe Fivepack. and alot more intelligent than sleepy Flange >>> Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and >>> put [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > and alot more intelligent than sleepy Flange ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >>>> Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and >>>> put [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz point proved > Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put > their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > considered naturalised in the US ... and hence have to re apply for their > Aussie/NZ citizenship? no next? > Recently, two young men were charged in the US with bank robbery, and put > their hands up to it. It's a fair cop. Both evidently kept photos of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If they do end up spending 25 years in a US prison, will they be > considered naturalised in the US No. Physical presence in the US, other than at the moment of one's birth, will not cause acquisition of US citizenship. ... and hence have to re apply for their > Aussie/NZ citizenship? Even if the US were to grant citizenship to these criminals (and they won't), the criminals would not have to reapply for their original citizenships because they wouldn't lose them to begin with. Neither Australia nor New Zealand will take away the citizenship of someone who applies for or who receives another citizenship. Australia used to take away citizenship of adults who voluntarily applied for another citizenship but they don't do that any longer. In any case, it's a non-starter. The US wouldn't grant citizenship based on a lengthly stay in a US prison. Stephen Gallagher |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.