Dual Nationality: boon or bane for America?

The enactment of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (also known as Philippine Dual Citizenship Law) that allows former Filipino citizens to reacquire their Philippine citizenship, which they renounced when they became citizens of their adopted countries, has been a welcome development among Filipino expatriates here in the United States and elsewhere.

With this new law, the Philippines joined the group of major immigrant-sending nations to the United States that have enacted laws that allow expatriates to reacquire their rights as nationals despite taking citizenship status in the United States or elsewhere. The law paves the way for Filipino expatriates from all over the world, especially from the United States, to renew their kinship and reestablish ties to their motherland. For years now, many naturalized Americans have claimed full citizenship of the countries where they were born, including Canada, Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ireland and France. A recent survey published in the immigration journal “Interpreter Releases” found that 66 out of 128 countries now permit some form of dual nationality.

Why do naturalized American citizens become dual nationals? There are myriad reasons. Some naturalized Americans maintain a sentimental attachment to their country of birth. Some like to preserve the option of retiring and spending the remaining days of their lives in their native countries. Others simply want convenience- to avoid the hassle and the bureaucratic red tape in obtaining visas when traveling and doing business abroad. In fact, the convenience of visa exemption has become attractive to many American business professionals who frequently travel abroad. For some wealthy and enterprising Americans seeking “tax havens”, dual nationality provides economic and tax advantage. This scheme is within the easy reach of certain affluent Americans who have substantial investments in other countries. Simply put, they “buy” their second nationality as an expedient way to escape tax obligations to Uncle Sam.

Unbeknownst to expatriates who embraced dual nationality, there is more to raising the right hand, reciting the oath of allegiance and applying for a foreign passport. Embracing dual nationality presents the complicated and intertwine issues of loyalties and allegiances vis-à-vis U.S. immigration and foreign policies. This issue has opened a raging debate among the expatriates themselves, attorneys, scholars, and immigration critics of whether dual nationality undercuts the true meaning of American citizenship. Each group endlessly cites the pros and cons of dual nationality.

Opponents of dual nationality say this issue is tied to the “marriage metaphor.” For example, Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer of Universal Press Syndicate has asserted that dual nationality dilutes patriotic commitments and “makes citizenship akin to bigamy.” John Fonte of the Hudson Institute, in his testimony before a congressional hearing, said that dual nationality is philosophically inconsistent with our liberal democracy. Many opponents anchor their opposition to dual nationality on the issue of loyalty and allegiance- that dual nationality begets dual loyalties and dual allegiances. They contend that an immigrant who becomes a United States citizen renounces all allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty. Undivided loyalty and allegiance, they say, is one that holds all Americans together and puts a sense of oneness to the United States as a nation. Loyalty and allegiance to this country and the ideals it represents, they contend, are powerful reasons for embracing immigrants from all over the world.

Ideally, loyalty and allegiance don’t pose any problem in time of peace where the United States is at terms with many countries. War with the Philippines, Mexico, Canada, Ireland or France is remote under the present political climate. But what if, say, 100 years from now, arises a political crisis or, worse, a military confrontation between the United States and Canada or Mexico that would force millions of dual nationals to decide where their loyalties and allegiances lie. Such a scenario would put to serious test the loyalties and allegiances of dual nationals.

Others, however, have a benign view of dual nationality. Peter Spiro, a Hofstra University law professor, says, “Dual nationality is something the United States should not only tolerate but embrace. By doing so, we would accomplish two worthy purposes: encouraging the assimilation of immigrants who otherwise would decline to become American citizens and helping to export our political ideals of liberty and democracy to countries around the globe.” Some say that the growing trend of dual nationality is a natural and healthy outgrowth of globalization and economic and cultural integration brought about by the rapid changes in today’s technology.

What does the United States government say on the on-going debate? As early as 1915, the U.S. government has looked askance at dual nationality. President Theodore Roosevelt minced no words to call dual nationality a “self evident absurdity.” Officially, the U.S. government maintains that it does not favor dual nationality because of the complication it presents. The U.S. Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Douglas, in a 1952 case of Kawakita v. United States, said, “One who has dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which may at times be competing or conflicting, and that circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship.”

But the position of the U.S. government on paper is a far cry from what happens in practice. The U.S. Department of State says it recognizes that dual nationality exists. It however does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. This notwithstanding, the U.S. Department of State imposes no sanctions on naturalized American citizens who become dual nationals. This leads critics to say that naturalizing American citizens who take the renunciation oath that they have no intention of respecting by becoming dual nationals make a mockery of the U.S. citizenship process. And because the renunciation oath has never been enforced, many believe that dual nationality has become, as a practical matter, almost completely tolerated under U.S. law.

Thus far, no U.S. law exists that strictly bans or limits dual nationality. Until a law is passed banning naturalized American citizens from retaining or reacquiring their original nationality, and sanctions imposed on them for violating their renunciation oaths, the dual nationality trend will continue in an era of growing global migration.

Mandy M. Dornagon, Esq.
*Attorney at LawWebsite- http://www.attydornagon.com
*Author, A Guide to U.S. Visas for Filipino Professionals

Thanks for this article reposting!