dual citizenship essay

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal of Constitutional Law
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. a short history of dual nationality, 2. plural citizenship as right, 3. confronting objections: undermining equality and diluting solidarity, 4. setting plural citizenship right, 5. conclusion.

• < Previous

Dual citizenship as human right

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Peter J. Spiro, Dual citizenship as human right, International Journal of Constitutional Law , Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 111–130, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mop035

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Dual citizenship has become an unexceptional status in the wake of globalization yet remains at the sufferance of states. This essay advances the novel claim that dual citizenship should be protectable as a human right. In light of the threat that dual nationals once posed to stable bilateral relations, states were justified, historically, in suppressing the status. As that threat has dissipated, the values of freedom of association and liberal autonomy implied by citizenship ties should trump lingering state resistance. Failure to recognize the status also burdens the exercise of political rights by raising the cost of naturalization. Insofar as dual citizenship undermines state solidarities, that interest is too diffuse to justify nonapplication of associational and self-governance norms. There is growing evidence from state practice that dual citizenship is appropriately situated in a human rights framework.

For most of modern history, dual citizenship was considered an anomaly, at best, and an abomination, at worst. It has since become a commonplace of globalization. The sequence has been from strong disfavor to toleration; indeed, some states have moved to embrace the status. Could plural citizenship now achieve the status of a right?

This essay makes a bounded case for recognizing a right to acquire and maintain plural citizenship. It does so through the optics of freedom of association and liberal autonomy values. Citizenship comprises both a form of association and a vehicle for individual identity. The liberal state has no business obstructing alternate national ties in the absence of a compelling interest. That interest once existed, to the extent that dual nationality destabilized interstate relations, and it explains the historical opprobrium attached to the status. Now, however, laws directed at reducing the incidence of dual citizenship may also unjustifiably burden the exercise of political rights. Today, the material downside risks (if any) posed by plural citizenship have dissipated to the point that the state is no longer justified in suppressing the status.

The essay traces the historical trajectory of dual nationality and its recent acceptance. It then makes the case for more broadly conceiving of plural citizenship as a right. I address two objections. First is the argument that plural citizenship violates equality norms insofar as only some will be positioned to acquire the status. (It should be clear up front that when I speak of a right to acquire and maintain plural citizenship, I do not mean a right to acquire any nationality of one's choosing. 1 Rather, the right would be to acquire and/or maintain an additional nationality when otherwise eligible under a state's citizenship rules.) This objection fails because plural citizenship does not give rise to inequality within the polity. More formidable is the claim that plural citizenship undermines state solidarities. I agree that the dramatic rise of plural citizenship ultimately threatens to demote the state from the pedestal it has occupied during the Westphalian era. That, however, is too diffuse an interest to overcome individual autonomy values.

In the meantime, individuals should be as free to affiliate with states as they are with other nonpathological membership entities. The essay concludes with some indirect evidence from practice that dual citizenship is gaining traction as a right.

There has been a remarkable shift in perceptions of dual nationality. Until the end of the twentieth century, the status was highly disfavored. In recent years, however, it has come to be widely accepted. Although statistical information is lacking, it is clear that there has been an explosion in the numbers of individuals holding plural citizenship. 2

1.1. Historical disfavor

I have elsewhere recounted the historical aversion to dual nationality. 3 For present purposes, the key feature of this account is the serious threat that dual nationality posed to world order. States engaged in the human equivalent of turf contests over individuals to whom they both laid claim. State power was correlated with control of resources, and states sought to control resources, physical and human. 4 Just as world order was undermined by unclear jurisdiction over and competing claims to territory, so, too, with persons.

For purposes of affiliation to the state, this incentive was translated into the vocabulary of natural law and the rule of perpetual allegiance, under which birth allegiance to the sovereign was indissoluble. So long as migration was an epiphenomenon, as it was during the feudal age, the approach was benign. Indeed, the concept of nationality itself was marginal during the early modern period (hence the minimal treatment of the subject by such writers as Grotius and Vattel). 5 The advent of nontrivial migration gave rise to conflicts between states. Countries of origin refused to recognize transferred national affiliations. Where the opportunity presented itself, states would (literally) make a grab for their natives for purposes of military service, even where the individual had naturalized in a new state of residence. The resulting struggles gave rise to serious bilateral disputes between the state of origin and state of naturalization, sometimes resulting in military conflict, for example, the War of 1812.

More generally, conflicts of nationality and dual nationality (in the sense of competing claims) offended the core orienting principles of sovereignty. Under the law of nations before the advent of human rights (that is, before World War II), states were free to treat their own nationals as they pleased but constrained in their treatment of nationals of other states, under the law of state responsibility. The divide reflected international law's posture vis-à-vis individuals as mere extensions of the state. Sovereigns had complete discretion within their own realm (in this application, the realm of their subjects) but could not interfere in the realm of other sovereigns (here, the subjects of other sovereigns). These ground rules could not account for dual nationals. Bilateral conflict was the upshot.

States thus saw an imperative in minimizing the incidence of dual nationality. Dual nationals represented instability in a world in which the downside risks of instability were serious, in an era in which there were no brake triggers on the way to war. But there were no easy mechanisms for suppressing the status. Sovereignty itself precluded the imposition of a supranational regime to harmonize citizenship rules so as to avoid multiple nationality, since states were unwilling fully to cede discretion over their membership practices. So long as some states retained perpetual allegiance, for instance, dual nationality would be the result of naturalization. Likewise, the interplay of jus sanguinis and jus soli approaches resulted in dual nationality at birth.

It was not for want of trying. The United States was able to conclude bilateral agreements with select European states providing for the transfer of nationality (the Bancroft treaties), and, in the face of intense American pressure, 6 other states came to recognize the possibility of expatriation. British nationals naturalizing in the United States after 1870 lost their British citizenship and avoided dual nationality as a result. The early part of the twentieth century witnessed a high-profile initiative to negotiate a nationality regime aimed at eliminating the status, hatched with Rockefeller money, hosted by the Harvard Law School, and aimed at a major international legal codification conference, held at the Hague in 1930. 7 That effort was a near-complete failure, however. The resulting Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws set a strong discursive tone against dual nationality (“recognizing,” in its preamble, “the ideal towards which the efforts of humanity should be directed is the abolition of all cases both of statelessness and double nationality”); but it did little in its operative terms to reduce incidence of dual nationality, and, in any case, the agreement enjoyed a mere dozen ratifications. 8

Unable to complete an effective international regime governing nationality practices, other domestic law mechanisms took hold. In addition to expatriation upon naturalization before another sovereign, some states required election at the age of majority between the two. 9 Others expatriated nationals who engaged in conduct premised on the holding of another nationality, such as the holding of public office. Under U.S. law, voting in a foreign political election resulted in expatriation. 10 These mechanisms helped police against active dual nationality, but—in the absence of multilateral cooperation—they were inevitably leaky. Many individuals held the status through birth circumstance, including most children born in the United States to noncitizen parents.

It is perhaps because dual nationality was at one time so threatening to world order and so immune to legal resolution that it became the object of fierce condemnation. If the status could not be eliminated through policy-making channels it had to be deterred through other means. Strong social norms excoriated the active condition of dual nationality. The standard metaphorical frame was marriage, with dual nationality taking the place of bigamy. 11 Through the nineteenth century into the twentieth, dual nationality was condemned as nothing less than a moral abomination. If the law could not stop one from holding the status (the status itself was typically not “illegal”), social norms went a long way toward mitigating its threat to world order.

This proposition is important to understanding the use of such terms as “loyalty” and “allegiance” in the context of dual nationality. These terms had little independent material significance. Rather, they were a cultural backstop to ineffective legal ordering. Claims of “disloyalty” worked as a shaming mechanism against the practice of dual nationality even where the law could not. Framing the issue this way was congruent with general conceptions of nationality and of duty to sovereign (from the era during which a sovereign could have commanded and expected obedience), though that was more convenient than consequential. Dual nationals have never posed any particular security threat. There were no notable cases of dual nationals committing espionage, for example. Nor was dual nationality a problem even in the context of war between alternate nation-states. Individuals in that situation (true of many Japanese and German nationals who held U.S. citizenship at the outbreak of World War II) had to choose between the two. Under the laws of many countries the fact of enlistment in a foreign army would result in the termination of nationality. Still, those who chose to fight with the adversary posed no special threat by virtue of their (former) dual nationality.

In short, the historical threat posed by dual nationals was indirect rather than direct. There was nothing essentially immoral about multiple national connections, nor were dual nationals enabled by their status to harm the state. By blurring the boundaries of human community between states, the status destabilized interstate relations. This was a consequence of legal conventions. Dual nationality was the chink in armor of sovereignty, a condition that the logic of sovereignty could not process. Individual agency had little to do with the problem; the worst that could be said of dual nationals is that they sometimes sought, strategically, to use their alternate nationality for purposes of diplomatic protection. 12 The indirect nature of the threat, however, made it no less serious. Because the ultimate risk of dual nationality was to provoke the antagonism of other states, it was more serious than the prospect of “disloyalty.” That explains why states were so intent on eradicating the status.

1.2. Recent acceptance

Isolating the source of disfavor for dual nationality also explains its more recent acceptance. Sovereignty, such as it is, no longer allows states full discretion in the treatment of nationals. That eliminates the architectural feature of international society that had rendered dual nationality a threat to interstate order. Other developments incidentally have further diminished the threat. The end point is that dual nationality (now more appropriately denominated as dual citizenship, 13 even plural citizenship, as more individuals come to possess more than two citizenships) does not pose a material social cost. This changes the balance in evaluating the justification for residual governmental interference with the status.

The key moving part here is the advent of human rights. Human rights norms have not been thought to protect plural citizenship, as such; the claim I make below to that effect is novel in its breadth. However, the constraints imposed by human rights norms on how states treat their own citizens have eliminated the anomalous position of the dual citizen. Before human rights, dual nationals were the only nationals with respect to which a sovereign faced legal constraint, even where they did not recognize the legitimacy of the individual's holding of an another nationality (or, more precisely, the legitimacy of the other state of nationality coming to its national's assistance). After human rights, sovereigns faced such constraint with respect to all nationals, whether or not they had the additional tie. 14 As a result, dual nationality no longer reflected a special threat to peaceful bilateral relations.

The overall global setting has also become more stable. Although there were great risks in interstate relations through the Cold War, they were unlikely to be triggered by dual nationals in part because movement was tightly controlled between East and West, in part because the danger of conflagration reduced the utility of intermediate armed response. In the Charter era, states were not legally enabled to use force as a recourse for mistreatment of their nationals, as they had been in the past. The risk of conflict has diminished further in the wake of globalization, the greater incidence of democratic governance at the level of the state, and the existence of more robust fail-safe mechanisms on the road to war.

Conflict still exists, including military conflict. In some unstable contexts, citizenship has been a factor in justifying the use of force, most recently with respect to Russia's invasion of Georgia on the grounds of protecting Russian citizens resident in Georgia. But dual citizenship has not been a defining feature of this justification, which, in any case, has been rejected by the international community. 15 The modern cognate to conflicts provoked by the straddling nature of dual nationality is humanitarian intervention, in which states intervene militarily as a response to human rights violations. Humanitarian interventions are not contingent on the citizenship status of the victims of human rights abuses.

In short, dual citizens are no longer an exceptional source of conflict, in a world in which conflict has been reduced. They do not pose other direct costs on states, which is reflected in the more recent practice of states. Where dual nationality was once highly disfavored, if not outlawed, it has become widely accepted. Many states no longer pursue strategies intended to suppress dual nationality. Many have abandoned the practice under which naturalization in another country automatically resulted in loss of citizenship. Under the new majority practice, those who naturalize maintain their original citizenship as a default position. 16 With respect to those born with plural citizenship, few states now require election at the age of majority. Both of these changes in state practice have made plural citizenship legally sustainable in many instances.

Some among so-called sending states (states that are net sources of immigrants) have determined that dual citizenship is in their national interest. Among these, dual citizenship is not merely tolerated but embraced and encouraged. For these states, emigrants represent an important source of foreign exchange and entrepreneurial capital. Previously, emigrants from these states were considered to have turned on their homelands as part of the brain-drain phenomenon. More recently, allowing emigrants to retain their original citizenship after naturalizing in the state to which they have immigrated has been adopted as a strategy for cementing the home-state tie, with ancillary economic benefits. 17 Along similar lines, states have liberalized the basis for acquiring citizenship on the basis of descent, with an understanding that in most such cases original citizenship will be maintained in addition to citizenship in the state of residence. Receiving states have also come to understand that acceptance of dual citizenship among immigrants facilitates naturalization and advances integration.

These observations frame dual citizenship in terms of state interest: previously a clear detriment, more recently a neutral quantity and now perhaps a benefit. Historically, individual interests in the status were ignored. To the extent they were considered at all, it was by way of asserting the congruence of state and individual interests in combating the status. It is true that in many cases dual nationality translated into dual obligations, especially with respect to military service, and that individuals shared an interest in shedding one or the other of their nationalities (typically that of the state of nonresidence). 18 This individual interest in avoiding dual nationality was dressed up as resolving associated “psychological difficulties” with the status, working from the loyalty tropes described above. 19 No allowances were made in the commentary or elsewhere for the possibility that persons eligible for more than one nationality would desire to maintain them.

It is now difficult to argue that dual citizenship is categorically inimical to individual interests. State acceptance of the status has often been as a result of expatriate lobbying. Fewer states require military service, and, among those that do, bilateral arrangements have resolved duplicative military service obligations for those holding dual citizenship. 20 Taxes are now assessed primarily on criteria other than citizenship, usually on the basis of residence (and to the extent that duplicative tax obligations arise as a result of dual citizenship or residence, they also have been mitigated by treaty).

At the same time that additional citizenships pose few additional obligations, they may present some added benefits, among them rights of entry and residence, some public benefits (most additionally contingent on residence, such as educational benefits), eligibility for employment, and the like. Although these benefits are usually not dramatic, where the costs of securing and/or maintaining an additional citizenship is effectively zero, any nontrivial benefit will suffice to render plural citizenship in the interest of the individual concerned.

It is one thing to frame plural citizenship as an individual interest, another to frame it as an individual right. There are alternate bases for establishing a right to acquire and maintain plural citizenship. The first works from a conception of citizenship as identity and as a form of association. The other portrays citizenship as necessary to perfecting political rights of self-governance. Both cases are theoretically strong but enjoy almost no direct support in constitutional practice. This may result from the social and cultural nature of the historical norms against dual nationality. These norms are stickier than merely legal ones, and it will take something on the order of a cognitive shift to establish plural citizenship as a right.

For purposes of the rights analysis, there are three primary variants on the acquisition and obstruction of plural citizenship.

( a ) Plural citizenship acquired at birth, through mixed parentage or the jus soli/jus sanguinis interplay. In these cases, as noted above, states historically attempted to combat dual nationality by requiring election at the age of majority. The right in this context would be asserted against either or both states, to the extent they required election, to maintain the status into adulthood.

( b ) Plural citizenship which would result from naturalization but for the practice of the country of origin terminating original citizenship upon the acquisition of another citizenship (an expatriation mechanism). The right in this context would be asserted against the country of origin, to maintain original citizenship notwithstanding the acquisition of the additional citizenship.

( c ) Plural citizenship which would result from naturalization but for the requirement of the naturalizing state that the applicant terminate original citizenship (an effective renunciation requirement). 21 The right here would be asserted against the state of prospective naturalization.

These variants are salient to the rights analysis. Ultimately, however, the right to acquire or maintain plural citizenship can be sustained in each.

2.1. Plural citizenship as associative freedom

To the extent that citizenship is taken to be a form of membership, it is not clear what grounds there are to restrict it. In this context, citizenship is equated with membership in other organizations and affiliations that define identity. Membership in the state is akin to membership in religions, clubs, nongovernmental organizations, and political parties. 22 These memberships may have both instrumentalist and noninstrumentalist motivations. As a matter of both constitutional and international law, states may not restrict membership in nonstate entities absent necessary cause. 23

Most constitutional jurisprudence relating to freedom of association involves the denial of membership and the question of whether the state should intervene to require the extension of membership by a group to an excluded individual. A recent example from the U.S. Supreme Court involved the exclusion of homosexuals from the Boy Scouts. The Court struck down a state statute that would have required the inclusion of the unwanted class of persons. It found forced inclusion justified only where it “serve[s] compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.” 24

Plural citizenship, by contrast, involves an entity (a state) that is willing to take or maintain an individual as a member. This is most clearly the case with respect to expatriation mechanisms, where a country of origin terminates citizenship upon acquisition of citizenship in another state. The capacity to join the association (the other state) is burdened by the expatriation consequence. The question is whether a state can impose the cost on the consensual relationship.

At the threshold, there can be little doubt that expatriation constitutes a rights-salient cost. It is not a criminal penalty, the imposition of which would situate the issue squarely as one of free association. 25 One need not draw on overheated Warren Court characterizations of citizenship (including a finding that expatriation constitutes a worse punishment than death) 26 to make the case that termination of citizenship requires justification. In the context of association with the Communist Party, for example, the Supreme Court found that public-sector employment ineligibilities triggered First Amendment protections. 27

The next step is to establish citizenship in another state as associational activity, thus raising the justificatory bar. It is self-evidently associational in a nonformal sense, at least, involving the coming together of individuals in a structured organization to advance material and sentimental interests. To the extent it implicates redistribution, citizenship has material ends. But it also clearly comprehends an affective attachment; as Peter Schuck observes, citizenship provides a focus of “emotional energy on a scale capable of satisfying deep human longings for solidarity, symbolic identification, and community.” 28 The question, then, is whether the fact that the association takes place in the structure of a (foreign) state removes citizenship from the category for constitutional purposes, so that no heightened justification is required. It cannot be that the prospective additional citizenship implicates membership in a foreign entity, as membership in foreign organizations is subject to associational protection. Membership and participation in foreign associations, including foreign political associations, is protected activity. Absent heightened justification, the government cannot burden membership in a foreign-based human rights group or the Catholic Church, even though both might challenge state policies and interests. Subject to ordinary constraints on freedom of association, membership in a foreign state would seem indistinguishable.

One might pose the availability of putative substitutes for formal nationality. In the United States, for instance, there is a long tradition of homeland-oriented, nongovernmental forms of association such as the Knights of Columbus and the Ancient Order of Hibernians around which immigrant communities have organized. In the era in which dual nationality was condemned, these entities served as a sort of surrogate home for original nationalities, and it might be argued that they continue to supply an adequate outlet for the associational impulse. (For that matter, it may be possible in many cases today to join foreign political parties, which could be taken as organizational proxies for citizenship.) That would involve judgment on the part of the state and the constraint of individual autonomy. At the same time that they may be aligned, the state of Italy and the Knights of Columbus are distinct. An individual might well be interested in associating with the former but not the latter. The same analysis holds for institutional vehicles of the new diasporas, such as hometown associations; they satisfy parallel but differentiated needs for membership in the homeland state. Citizenship is a vehicle for identity.

Because citizenship qualifies as associational activity, expatriation as the result of naturalization in another country should require special cause. Rather than the current international legal regime, under which states have full discretion to terminate the citizenship of those who naturalize elsewhere, states should be held to a more exacting test. In the doctrinal formulation of U.S. constitutional law, because the expatriation mechanism obstructs freedom of association, strict scrutiny is warranted, and a governmental measure restricting this freedom should stand only where narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest.

The expatriation mechanism cannot survive this test. In these terms and in most contexts, the balance is lopsided in favor of protecting an associational right to acquire membership in another state without risk of forfeiting original citizenship. As described above, dual citizens no longer pose the serious (albeit indirect) threat to stable interstate relations that once explained the intense historical disfavor for the status. Why should Japan be enabled to expatriate a Japanese citizen when she acquires, say, U.S. citizenship (as is now the case under Japanese law)? There is no risk that the dual Japanese-U.S. citizen will undermine peaceful relations between the two states. To the extent that direct security threats are the concern (though there has never been a correlation between dual nationality and subversive behavior), they can addressed through more surgical forms of regulation, like espionage laws.

A handful of pairings would pose a closer question in what Rainer Bauböck calls “complex cases,” 29 for example, in the contexts of Central and Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet republics. If a large number of Latvian citizens of Russian ethnicity were to naturalize as Russian citizens, Latvia might justify terminating their Latvian citizenship on the grounds that as dual citizens they would increase the risk of Russian-Latvian conflict. Considered solely from a state interests perspective, on balance Latvia would have an incentive to adopt an expatriation mechanism in this context. Bauböck argues that extending citizenship of a kin state to transborder minorities is “a different matter” to the extent that it destabilizes “clearly demarcated” territorial jurisdictions. 30 But that justification for suppressing dual citizenship appears marginal when set against dual citizenship as an associational right (leaving aside the self-governance issues, discussed below, implicated by the deprivation of political rights that come with citizenship). Although Russia might attempt to use its citizens residing in Latvia as a pretext for intervention in Latvian affairs (perhaps even for military action, as it did in Georgia), the citizenship status of ethnic Russians would probably make little difference to its calculation, nor certainly to international audiences. These territorial jurisdictions are already being destabilized by developments both universal and particularistic.

Outside of the citizenship context, consensual affiliations can be proscribed only where they are criminal. The current regime—under which plural citizenship is a matter of grace, not of right—sustains an equivalence between membership in criminal organizations and membership in other states. It may once have been the case that both represented a similar level of threat, insofar as membership in another state posed both an indirect threat to interstate relations and (possibly) a more direct threat by doing the bidding of competitors in a zero-sum game. It is difficult to sustain this logic in a world in which interstate relations have stabilized. 31 To the extent that an individual is eligible to acquire and maintain another citizenship, associational freedoms demand protection of the status.

The associational analysis maps well onto the use of the expatriation mechanism, where the acquisition of another citizenship is burdened by the threatened termination of existing citizenship. The analysis may be more complex where the state of naturalization requires an applicant to terminate original citizenship as a condition of naturalization, the effective renunciation condition. (German practice supplies an example.) Both international and constitutional law have allowed states to distinguish between members and would-be members in a rights frame. 32 For citizenship purposes, this is reflected in the fact that states may not arbitrarily expatriate citizens, for instance, on a racially discriminatory basis, at the same time that they are thought to maintain near-complete discretion with respect to naturalization. 33 On the other hand, given an individual who is otherwise qualified for naturalization, the imposition of a renunciation condition burdens associational activity that parallels the expatriation mechanism. In both cases the maintenance/acquisition of one state identity requires the sacrifice of the other. 34

As for the plural citizenship acquired at birth, it presents perhaps the best application for the associational analysis, especially where it results from mixed-status parentage. In the typical case, a child's identity is molded by the parents’. Thus, the child of parents of different citizenships is likely to identify with both. The formerly common requirement that birthright dual nationals undertake a choice at majority (the election requirement) interferes with the individual's autonomy to maintain each connection, both of which will often be central to identity. The result of imposed election, in effect, is a requirement to choose between mother and father. The strength of the case for protecting the maintenance of dual citizenship in these cases is reflected in the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, which requires parties to allow the maintenance of dual citizenship acquired automatically at birth. 35

Loyalty to our state of birth is bound up with our love for our parents and siblings, who are part of the state; it is possible that loyalty to a spouse's state is affected by our love for him or her or by our love for our children, who have ties to that state. 36

2.2. Plural citizenship as political right

Plural citizenship also implicates self-governance values. Formal status as a citizen is typically necessary to the perfection of political rights. If plural citizenship is obstructed, with the result that an individual is denied a citizenship for which she would otherwise be eligible, political rights are likely to be compromised. The acquisition and maintenance of plural citizenship thus becomes a protectable predicate status.

The effective renunciation condition is most vulnerable when set against this proposition. This tool for reducing the incidence of plural citizenship is deployed by states of immigration with respect to residents seeking to naturalize. Renunciation becomes a part of the price of naturalization. The magnitude of this price will vary. In some cases it may be low, as in the case of a refugee who has fled persecution in his country of origin. In many cases, it will be high for material and/or sentimental reasons. With renunciation, emigrants may lose various capacities with respect to the ownership of property and commercial enterprises, entry rights, and public benefits. They will also give up political leverage with which to influence homeland policies relevant to emigrant interests. The sentimental costs are probably more prevalent, for all the reasons discussed above in the context of associative freedoms. In the context of the effective renunciation condition, one is usually dealing with the renunciation of original birth citizenship. As Schuck observes, the early acculturation that comes with original citizenship makes it something like first love, 37 suggesting not just an expressive but an intimate association.

Renunciation thus attaches a cost to naturalization. Assuming that an unwillingness to naturalize deprives individuals of political rights, and that renunciation will only be required from habitual residents, 38 the condition compromises self-governance values. An individual from country A who immigrates to country B and now habitually resides there must pay for full political rights in the form of terminating his formal connection to country A.

This again implicates state discretion in determining membership qualifications. International law has afforded states broad discretion with regard to naturalization. There is, however, an increasing disconnect between the legal regime and the liberal self-governance paradigm. Liberal theory works from the premise that those who are territorially present are members of “society,” are affected by governmental action, and should be able to participate in self-governance on the basis of equality. Hence, liberal theory has assumed the virtue of low barriers to naturalization. Some theorists have asserted the necessity of a naturalization option after a period of residence. 39 Under that approach, the renunciation condition appears to offend liberal values, insofar as it contributes to a disconnect between society (defined in territorial terms) and the polity (defined by citizenship status).

The expatriation and election mechanisms are more consistent with the territorial foundations of liberal-governance paradigms. The expatriation mechanism would work to reinforce the correlation of territorial location and citizenship, in the typical case by terminating the citizenship of an individual who has moved to another country on a permanent basis. Similarly with the election requirement, insofar as individuals forced to choose between citizenships will choose the citizenship associated with residence. However, a political rights argument can be deployed against these practices as well. In the face of continuing material and affective connections, nonresident citizens will often have a stake in the politics of their homelands. The fact of this stake is reflected in the increasingly prevalent practice of external citizen voting, under which nonresident citizens are extended the franchise even where they have naturalized in their new country of residence. 40 There is thus a self-governance critique of expatriation and election, although it is most powerfully applied to the renunciation condition.

Two objections to recognizing a human right to dual citizenship are possible, even from liberal premises: that it undermines equality and dilutes the solidarity of the citizenry. Contrary to the political rights optic, some argue that dual citizenship may be the source of—not a solution to—inequality. Because dual citizens will have rights in more than one state, they will have more rights than mononationals. 41 This was a prominent theme in the opposition to dual citizenship in debates over German citizenship reform in the late 1990s. The equality objection also questions dual voting. 42

But suppressing dual citizenship, especially through the renunciation condition, creates an equality problem of its own. Some residents (citizens) have full political rights, where others (noncitizens, including those who would naturalize but for the renunciation condition) do not. The resulting inequality is internal to the societal unit. Meanwhile, the dual citizen is not endowed with extra political rights within either polity; as Bauböck observes, “[a]s long as these votes are not aggregated at a higher level, the principle of one person/one vote has not been infringed.” 43 As a formal matter, the dual citizen enjoys the diplomatic protection of his other country of nationality. If a dual UK-Pakistani citizen gets in trouble with the British authorities, Pakistan can come to his assistance under international law, a potential advantage not shared by the mononational Briton similarly situated. However, that advantage has been devalued with the advent of human rights and the protection of all persons against governmental mistreatment, regardless of nationality. To the extent the additional nationality actually pays protection dividends, it is more in the way that affiliation with nonstate entities can advantage individuals relative to the state. A member of the Catholic Church or an employee of Exxon will have institutional support against governments that others lack. That fact—that life is unfair—does not violate the principle of equal citizenship. 44 Nor should the advantage of affiliation with other states.

Relatedly, the objection might measure equality at the global level. Assuming full political rights in each country of citizenship, a plural citizen (so the argument goes) will have multiple channels of access—two or more votes rather than one, aggregated at the higher level of the global polity—thus affording him greater status than those holding a single citizenship only. This argument is supported by institutional logic. Within domestic, particularly federal, systems, the analogy would be the bar on multiple residences for purposes of national voting. One cannot be a resident/citizen of both New York and California for voting purposes, even if you own houses in both and split your time between the two; if you were allowed to vote for national representatives in both jurisdictions, you would have more formal power than others in the process. Leaving aside the undemocratic implications of this domestic practice, 45 it does not translate to the global level. Such as it exists at all, global democracy is not formally democratic on the basis of equality, except at the level of states. (Considered at the level of the individual, the citizen of San Marino has far greater clout than the citizen of China.) Representation through states in international institutions is highly attenuated. Moreover, the channels to global influence are multiple and include nonstate vehicles. Amnesty International, the Catholic Church, and Exxon clearly have influence in international decision making, sometimes with formal status. That does not mean that plural “citizenship” in a state and in a powerful nonstate community violates equality norms. 46

The more serious objection to plural citizenship through a liberal optic is that it will undermine the solidarities necessary to support the liberal state. Liberal theorists advocate low barriers to naturalization. This is coupled with the premise that territorial presence generates “communities of character” (in Michael Walzer's articulation). This premise appears to be degrading. Although some theorists hold out durational residence alone as a criterion for naturalization, others allow for additional naturalization requirements. 47

All barriers to naturalization represent costs in one form or another (including the literal cost of application fees), costs that will be imposed on the access to citizenship and associated political rights. To the extent that naturalization requirements are necessary to maintain communal solidarity, on this view they may be justified, even if their imposition results in the exclusion of some individuals from citizenship who are territorially present. Many countries require that naturalization applicants demonstrate facility in a dominant national language, for example. Liberal theorists appear, generally, to accept such “reasonable” requirements even though the requirements will prevent some individuals from securing citizenship and deter others.

The consequence is often underexamined. That is, few commentators consider that the consequence of failing to satisfy naturalization requirements is unequal status and the deprivation of self-governance. Most barriers to naturalization look flimsy seen against those important norms. 48 For present purposes, however, I will accept the legitimacy of naturalization conditions beyond presence to the extent they are necessary to sustain communal bonds. The question, then, is whether a bar on plural citizenship qualifies as such.

The case is strongest where it centers the acquisition or maintenance of secondary or tertiary citizenships. Plural citizenship, definitionally, enables the acquisition or maintenance of subordinate citizenships. If an individual is permitted to hold only one citizenship, then holding that citizenship comes at the price of not holding others. On average, a regime that effectively suppresses plural citizenship creates an incentive for the individual to select the citizenship with the greatest personal salience. That salience may be measured in instrumental or affective terms; practicalities and emotions will both figure in the balance. But whether the citizenship is chosen for instrumental or affective reasons, it is likely to be substantial in orienting the individual's identity.

Plural citizenship, by contrast, tolerates trivialization. It lowers the cost of acquiring and maintaining an additional citizenship to whatever obligations are peculiar to that citizenship. In many cases, that level of obligation is effectively zero. The primary historical obligation of citizenship—military service—has been abandoned by many states and in others is based on residence rather than citizenship status. Taxes are almost entirely based on residence or the location of property. To the extent that citizenship is free, the decision to acquire or maintain a citizenship will turn on whether the status promises benefits. Although the benefits of citizenship have diminished, there continue to be advantages to the status, including the right of entry and some public benefits.

In that balance, it is rational to acquire and maintain any citizenship for which one is eligible, so long as it does not require the sacrifice of primary citizenship. Examples would include: any person born in the United States (but no longer resident there) and, therefore, eligible on a jus soli basis for citizenship; any person outside the European Union eligible for citizenship (but not necessarily resident) in such states as Ireland, Italy, or Greece, on the basis of ancestry; and individuals resident and eligible to naturalize in immigration-restrictive states who intend to retire to their country of origin but who wish to retain an ability to return. These citizenships will be secondary in the composite of the identity of their holders; they are citizenships of convenience, implicating all three techniques for suppressing plural citizenship. The examples are archetypes. On the ground, most cases will involve instrumental or sentimental interests. But plural citizenship will almost always involve one citizenship that is dearer than the other.

If not trivialization, secondary citizenship threatens to dilute citizenship solidarities. Dilution of solidarity threatens the project of the liberal state. Liberal theorists are aware of this threat. Although they generally accept plural citizenship (perhaps because it entails autonomy and self-governance values), it makes them fidget. 49 One response is the call to limit dual voting. Another is Schuck's proposal to require U.S. naturalization applicants to swear their primary loyalty to the United States. 50 That would mitigate the rights-compromising tendencies of the effective renunciation condition. However, to the extent it were consequential, it would be difficult both to implement and to justify. Interested in their own coherence, other liberal states presumably would adopt a similar strategy, in which case the exercise would become either meaningless or a disguised renunciation mechanism. On the normative side, it is not clear why the United States should be able to extract primary loyalty relative to another country of citizenship on pain of deprivation of the self-governance and other rights of citizenship.

Nor are the traditional mechanisms for suppressing plural citizenship justified on the grounds that the status dilutes solidarities. The threat is too diffuse and unspecific when balanced against political, associational, and other rights contingent on protecting the status. Although plural citizenship will sometimes implicate trivial underlying attachments, in most cases there will be underlying associational or political interests. Governments are poorly positioned to measure the authenticity of such interests. Free speech norms supply an analogy. Speech cannot be suppressed where it might conceivably result in societal harms; the threat must be immediate, the interest compelling, and the response circumscribed. Likewise with respect to the suppression of plural citizenship. Because the status poses no immediate threat, it must be protected, even if that protection ultimately facilitates the degradation of the state itself. Nor would the suppression of the status resolve the challenge, as the state faces challenges on multiple fronts.

The suggestion of a right to maintain plural citizenship is largely novel, the apparent logic notwithstanding. This failure of perception implicates cultural barriers. So deep until recently has been the animosity toward the status that there has not been adequate space for a rights frame to take hold. The practice has shifted toward tolerance, at the option of the state. However, there is evidence that plural citizenship may come to be conceived of as a protectable right.

As a predicate, the status is now understood to represent an individual interest. Individuals who hold or are eligible for plural citizenship are seeking the change of relevant legal regimes to the extent that these regimes continue to obstruct the status. The fact that states increasingly accept the practice helps lay the groundwork for the assertion of a right, both as a matter of culture (transforming the status from anomaly to commonplace) and law (transforming the trend from mere practice to customary or soft law).

As a matter of domestic constitutional law, recognition of a right to plural citizenship, as such, appears nonexistent. There are contexts in which constitutional wedges have been applied toward protecting the status. Antidiscrimination norms have been deployed to expand the availability of plural citizenship. Where dual citizenship has been accepted in one context, it has been pressed in others. In Australia, the fact that immigrants were allowed to keep their original citizenship upon naturalization in Australia (eschewing the effective renunciation condition) was an important factor in allowing native-born Australians to keep their original citizenship after naturalizing elsewhere (overcoming the expatriation mechanism). 51 In Germany, the fact that emigrant Germans are increasingly able to retain their citizenship may explain the high proportion of waivers (45 percent by one count) 52 from a renunciation condition. To the extent that states are finding it in their interest to allow or even encourage emigrants to maintain citizenship, 53 then, it may facilitate expanded acceptance of plural citizenship on a rights basis.

States are also confronting second-order rights issues associated with plural citizenship. The constitutions of several countries bar officeholding by dual nationals, including Australia, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Malawi, Nigeria, and Latvia, as well as in Hong Kong. Several of these regimes have come under attack. 54 These debates do not directly confront a right to maintain dual citizenship, and none appears to have been repealed recently. But the fact that restrictions on officeholding are being contested at all could presage an end point at which plural citizens are not only protected in their status but protected from discrimination on that basis.

International law shows more direct signs of an emerging right to plural citizenship. In contrast to all previous multilateral instruments relating to the status, the 1997 European Convention on Nationality refrains from condemning multiple nationality as a problem, instead noting “the desirability of finding appropriate solutions to consequences of multiple nationality and in particular as regards the rights and duties of multiple nationals.” In its operative provisions, the convention requires states to permit plural citizenship in the case of children born with the status and in the case of persons acquiring nationality automatically by marriage. The convention also provides that states may not make termination of original nationality a condition of naturalization, where such termination is not possible or cannot be reasonably required. 55 The 1997 European Convention on Nationality may represent a watershed, creating a foundation on which to build more expansive protections under international law. 56

Plural citizenship has been normalized as an incident of globalization. Nonetheless, some states will continue to obstruct individuals from holding the status. Acceptance of the status has been conceived of as a matter of policy and state interest. It is now possible to frame acquisition and maintenance of the status as a right, to the extent that plural citizenship implicates individual autonomy and self-governance values. Because it no longer poses a substantial threat to state interests, these values should be vindicated and state acceptance of the status universalized.

Contrast this with Franck's articulation of “a growing consciousness of a personal right to compose one's identity.” Thomas M. Franck, Clan and Superclan: Loyalty, Identity and Community in Law and Practice , 90 A m . J. I nt’l L. 359 (1996). See also id. at 377 (“What is remarkable today is the extent to which a person's loyalty system today, for the first time in history, has become a matter of personal choice”). Institutional identities will typically be a two-way street, often determined by individual option but also by internally constituted membership rules. An individual cannot simply decide that she wants to be a citizen of Italy, an employee of Google, or a member of the Catholic Church, all of which might loom large in an identity composite; she first needs to satisfy membership qualifications and secure admission.

For surveys of state practice relating to dual citizenship, see A lfred M. B oll , M ultiple N ationality and I nternational L aw (Martinus Nijhoff 2007); U.S. O ffice of P ersonnel M anagement , C itizenship L aws of the W orld (2001), available at www.multiplecitizenship.com/documents/IS-01.pdf

See Peter J. Spiro, Dual Nationality and the Meaning of Citizenship , 46 E mory L.J. 1411 (1997); see also P eter J. S piro , B eyond C itizenship : A merican I dentity A fter G lobalization , ch. 3 (Oxford Univ. Press 2008).

John Torpey links the innovation of the concept of nationality to state interests in “holding onto” individuals, by way of a kind of human mercantilism. J ohn T orpey , T he I nvention of the P assport : S urveillance , C itizenship, and the S tate (Cambridge Univ. Press 2000).

B oll , supra note 2, at 183 (“Multiple nationality was simply not conceived as an issue as such by Vattel and early writers on the law of nations”).

See, e.g., the so-called Hostage Act, Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 223 (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 1732 (2006)) (declaring expatriation to be “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and directing the president to use all means short of war to secure the release of U.S. citizens subject to unjust imprisonment by foreign governments).

See Harvard Research in International Law, The Law of Nationality , 23 A m . J. I nt’l L. 11 (Supp. 1929).

Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, Apr. 12, 1930, 179 L.N.T.S. 89.

See, e.g., Richard W. Flournoy, Jr., Dual Nationality and Election , 30 Y ale L.J. 693 (1921).

See Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958) (upholding § 349(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

See, e.g., Letter from George Bancroft to Lord Palmerston (Jan. 26, 1849), in S. E xec . D oc . N o . 36–38, at 164 (1850) (nation-states should “as soon tolerate a man with two wives as a man with two countries; as soon bear with polygamy as that state of double allegiance which common sense so repudiates that it has not even coined a word to express it”).

See, e.g., 3 J ohn B assett M oore , D igest of I nternational L aw 713 (Government Printing Office 1906) (annual message of President Grant, Dec. 7, 1874) (decrying persons living in a foreign country using “claims to citizenship of the United States simply as a shield from the performance of the obligations of a citizen elsewhere”).

At one time “nationality” and “citizenship” had important distinct legal meanings, the former generally applying to the international aspects of attachment to a state, the latter the marker of equal membership in constitutional democracy. Although the distinction persists in a dwindling number of contexts (where individuals are nationals but not citizens), the latter is more appropriate after the advent of human rights and the decline of membership short of citizenship.

It is true that even today states can as a legal matter more aggressively intercede with other states on behalf of their own nationals than on behalf of nationals of other states (mostly with respect to commercial dealings). But that is a matter of vanishing degree, not the binary of the historical approach.

See, e.g., Russia Resurgent , E conomist , Aug. 16, 2008, at 57 (noting Russia's “perfunctory attempts to justify the invasion” on the basis that it was defending Russian citizens; “[t]his excuse, as Sweden's foreign minister tartly noted, recalled Hitler's justifications of Nazi invasions”).

See B oll , supra note 2; see also S tanley A. R enshon , T he 50% A merican : I mmigration and N ational I dentity in an A ge of T error 6–20 (Georgetown Univ. Press 2005) (highlighting fact that 19 out of top 20 source states for immigrants to the United States allow retention of citizenship upon naturalization).

See, e.g ., Kim Barry, Home and Away: The Construction of Citizenship in an Emigration Context , 81 NYU L. R ev . 11 (2006).

Hence the conception of a “right” to expatriation, even though the interest was as much the state's as the individual’s. In practice, where available, expatriation was a duty, not an option, from the individual's perspective.

See, e.g., N issim B ar -Y aacov , D ual N ationality 265 (Stevens 1961).

See Stephen H. Legomsky, Dual Nationality and Military Service: Strategy Number Two , in R ights and D uties of D ual N ationals 79 (David A. Martin & Kay Hailbronner eds., Kluwer 2003).

“Effective” in the sense that the renunciation is enforced and evidence of termination of prior citizenship must be produced, as opposed to those regimes in which renunciation is included in a naturalization oath but is not enforced. See David A. Martin, Introduction: The Trend Toward Dual Nationality , in R ights and D uties , supra note 20, at 3, 6 (noting that renunciation has become “an empty verbal gesture” in some jurisdictions).

Cf. R ogers S mith , C ivic I deals 489–504 (Yale Univ. Press 1997) (analogizing American nation to political party).

For instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of association with others,” derogable only where “necessary … in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 22, Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 648 (2000).

Anti-immigration advocates in the United States have proposed criminalizing dual citizenship, see H.R. 3938, 109th Cong. §§ 702–704 (2005), but such efforts show no probability of success.

See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (“There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is instead the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development”); see also Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64 (“Citizenship is man's basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights”) (Warren, C.J., dissenting); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 268 (1967) (“The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship”). This essentialist discourse nonetheless allowed for expatriation in the context of dual nationality and might thus have been limited to contexts in which expatriation resulted in statelessness (although it remains difficult to reconcile with the logic of the argument in these opinions).

See Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966).

P eter S chuck , C itizens , S trangers, and I n -B etweens 175 (Westview 2000).

Rainer Bauböck, The Trade-off Between Transnational Citizenship and Political Autonomy , in D ual C itizenship in G lobal P erspective : F rom U nitary to M ultiple C itizenship 69, 79 (Thomas Faist & Peter Kivisto eds., Palgrave Macmillan 2007).

One could also make the instrumentalist argument that dual citizens could be a cause as well as a feature of this global condition. It is possible that between two states the existence of large number of dual citizens might act as a stabilizing force in interstate relations, although I suspect it would be a secondary one.

See generally D avid W eissbrodt , T he H uman R ights of N on -C itizens (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).

See, e.g., P aul W eis , N ationality and S tatelessness in I nternational L aw 65–66 (2d ed., Stevens & Sons 1979) (“the right of a State to determine who are, and who are not, its nationals is an essential element of its sovereignty”); Kay Hailbronner, Nationality in Public International Law and European Law , in A cquisition and L oss of N ationality , V olume 1: C omparative A nalyses 35 (Rainer Bauböck et al. eds., Amsterdam Univ. Press 2006) (“public international law has very little to say about the scope and limits of a state's determination of nationality”).

Ruth Rubio-Marín has also argued that emigrants should have a right to retain their original nationality upon naturalization in another state. See Ruth Rubio-Marín, Transnational Politics and the Democratic Nation-State: Normative Challenges of Expatriate Voting and Nationality Retention of Emigrants , 81 NYU L. R ev . 117, 142–143 (2006). She works from the premise that naturalization will “have nothing to do with a lack of attachment to their national identities or interests in preserving their ties to their countries of origin.” Id. at 142. While I agree that this is typically true as an empirical matter, it may be a fragile basis for establishing a right insofar as it implies that instrumental retention of citizenship should not be protectable. It might also buttress the grounds for receiving states to require the termination of original citizenship, although Rubio-Marín argues that they, too, “should stop asking immigrants to renounce their nationality as a condition for naturalization.” Id. at 143; see also Rainer Bauböck, Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism , 37 I nt’l M igration R ev . 700, 711 (2003) (“after some time of legal residence immigrants acquire a right to naturalization that should not depend on renouncing their previous citizenship”).

European Convention on Nationality art. 14, Nov. 6, 1997, C.E.T.S. No. 166 (entered into force Jan. 3, 2000).

Karen Knop, Relational Nationality: On Gender and Nationality in International Law , in C itizenship T oday : G lobal P erspectives and P ractices 89, 112 (T. Alexander Aleinikoff & Douglas Klusmeyer eds., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2001).

S chuck , supra note 28, at 228.

Renunciation of original citizenship is not typically required of those securing citizenship in the new diasporas on the basis of descent (Irish, Italian, and Mexican citizenship are examples), for the obvious reason that nonresidents would be highly unlikely to subscribe on that condition.

See, e.g., R ainer B auböck , T ransnational C itizenship ch. 4 (Edward Elgar 1994); R uth R ubio -M arín , I mmigration as a D emocratic C hallenge (Cambridge Univ. Press 2000); Joseph Carens, Citizenship and Civil Society: What Rights for Residents? , in D ual N ationality , S ocial R ights and F ederal C itizenship in the U nited S tates and E urope 100 (Randall Hansen & Patrick Weil eds., Berghahn Books 2002).

See Peter J. Spiro, Political Rights and Dual Nationality , in R ights and D uties , supra note 20, at 135; Rainer Bauböck, Stakeholder Citizenship and Transnational Political Participation: A Normative Evaluation of External Voting , 75 F ordham L. R ev . 2393 (2007).

This objection works from the premise, as do I, that not all individuals will be eligible for plural citizenship.

David A. Martin, New Rules on Dual Nationality for a Democratizing Globe: Between Rejection and Embrace , 14 G eorg . I mm . L.J. 1, 30 (1999) (“What is most fundamentally at stake is the equality that has been a key element in the basic understanding of what it means to be a citizen”).

Bauböck, supra note 34, at 717. See also Randall Hansen & Patrick Weil, Introduction: Dual Citizenship in a Changed World: Immigration, Gender and Social Rights , in D ual N ationality , S ocial R ights and F ederal C itizenship in the U nited S tates and E urope , supra note 39, at 1, 8–9 (concluding that dual citizenship does not violate Michael Walzer's principle of complex equality insofar as citizenship in one state will not advantage individual in his state of additional citizenship).

See Larry Alexander, What is Freedom of Association and What Is Its Denial?, 25 S oc . P hil . & P ol’y 1, 14 (2008) (“Equality at the level of rights of citizens will result in unequal, discriminatory treatment at the level of the exercise of those rights”).

Undemocratic in the sense that individuals with important interests in local government are left without political status as a result of the rule. For an inventive workaround, see Jerry Frug, Decentering Decentralization , 60 U. C hi . L. R ev . 253, 324–325 (1993) (proposing that all citizens be given an equal number of multiple votes which they could deploy geographically at their will).

This supplies a response to Ayelet Shachar's argument that plural citizenship compounds the inequalities of citizenship as a form of inherited property. See A yelet S hachar , T he B irthright L ottery : C itizenship and G lobal I nequality 130–131 (Harvard Univ. Press 2009) (“with the marked increase in dual nationality … some will be in possession of more diversified bundle or shares in several membership ‘corporations,’ whereas others will own merely a single citizenship parcel … , further deepening concerns about stratification and unequal opportunity”).

See, e.g., S eyla B enhabib , T he R ights of O thers : A liens , R esidents, and C itizens 139 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2004); Noah M. J. Pickus, To Make Natural: Creating Citizens for the Twenty-First Century, in I mmigration and C itizenship in T he T wenty -F irst C entury 107 (Noah M.J. Pickus ed., Rowan & Littlefield 1998).

See Peter J. Spiro, Questioning Barriers to Naturalization , 13 G eorg . I mm L.J. 479 (1999).

See, e.g., N oah P ickus , T rue F aith and A llegiance : I mmigration and A merican C ivic N ationalism 181 (Princeton Univ. Press 2005) (on one hand, acknowledging a positive aspect of plural citizenship in “enlarging communal identity” and “facilitat[ing] the spread of transnational communities of descent”; on other hand, warning that if “pursued indiscriminately, [it] risks exacerbating the process of alienation and fragmentation already at work within the United States”).

Peter H. Schuck, Plural Citizenships , in D ual N ationality , S ocial R ights and F ederal C itizenship in the U nited S tates and E urope , supra note 39, at 61, 88–89.

As the leading authority on Australian citizenship observed, “there was a basic inequality in the former system … some people were able to be dual citizens and others were not entitled to this privilege; it depended upon the order of obtaining the citizenship.” K im R ubenstein , A ustralian C itizenship in C ontext § 4.6.1.1 (Lawbook 2002).

See Betty de Hart & Ricky van Oers, European Trends in Nationality , in A cquisition and L oss of N ationality : P olicies and T rends in 15 E uropean C ountries , supra note 33, at 317, 356 n.37.

See generally C hristian J oppke , I mmigration and the N ation -S tate (Cambridge Univ. Press 2000).

See, e.g., Gianni Zappala & Stephen Castles, Citizenship and Immigration in Australia , in C itizenship T oday : G lobal P erspectives and P ractices , supra note 36, at 32, 58–62 (describing debate in Australia).

European Convention on Nationality, supra note 35, at preamble, arts. 14 & 16.

See Kim Rubenstein, Globalization and Citizenship and Nationality , in J urisprudence for an I nterconnected G lobe 159 (Catherine Dauvergne ed., Ashgate 2003) (predicting “increasing willingness in international treaty law to acknowledge and encourage dual and multiple nationality”).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• I·CONnect
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1474-2659
• Print ISSN 1474-2640
• Copyright © 2024 New York University School of Law and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

U.S. Immigration Support is an information website not affiliated with the United States government. We do not provide legal services.

U.S. Dual Citizenship Explained: A Complete Guide to Acquiring and Managing Dual Nationality

In 2020 alone, nearly 900,000 people obtained U.S. citizenship. Interestingly, a significant percentage of these new citizens did not relinquish their original nationality, embracing the concept of dual citizenship. This guide serves as an illuminating resource for those navigating the nuanced path of acquiring and managing dual nationality in the United States. Covering a wide array of topics, from the legal implications and benefits, to the process of obtaining dual citizenship, and how to effectively manage the responsibilities that come with it, this guide provides an exhaustive insight into the multifaceted world of dual citizenship. The concept of US dual citizenship allows individuals to be citizens of two countries simultaneously.

Understanding Dual Citizenship

Acquiring US dual citizenship can provide a plethora of benefits, including access to social services, work rights, and the ability to participate politically in two countries. To grasp the intricacies of dual citizenship, one must first understand its core definition. US Dual Citizenship, or dual nationality, refers to the legal status whereby an individual is concurrently recognized as a citizen of two countries. This recognition confers upon the person the rights and obligations of citizens in each country, such as the right to live, work, vote, and be subjected to the laws therein. This intriguing legal status comes with unique benefits and challenges, shaped by factors such as international relations, personal circumstances, and the laws of the countries involved.

Benefits of Dual Citizenship

US Dual citizenship opens up a myriad of opportunities for individuals. By being a citizen of two countries, one gains increased mobility with potentially visa-free travel, access to social services and benefits in both countries, enhanced economic opportunities, and a broader cultural experience. It also provides a safety net, allowing individuals to relocate with ease if socio-political situations deteriorate in one country. In essence, dual citizenship can broaden an individual’s personal and professional horizons by providing a more global perspective. US dual citizenship is a significant status to hold, requiring careful navigation of rights and obligations across both nations.

Considerations and Challenges

While pursuing US dual citizenship, one should be aware of the possible obligations, including potential military service and tax responsibilities in both countries. However, dual citizenship is not without its complexities. Dual citizens must navigate and adhere to the laws of two countries, which can sometimes be contradictory. For example, they might face issues concerning taxation, as some countries tax their citizens based on worldwide income. Military service is another consideration if one or both countries require it. Furthermore, diplomatic protection could be compromised in situations where a dual citizen is in the country they are not currently claiming citizenship of. Lastly, the process of acquiring dual citizenship can be lengthy and complex, requiring thorough research and potentially considerable time and financial investment.

Acquiring US Dual Citizenship

The journey towards dual citizenship in the United States is characterized by stringent eligibility prerequisites, multi-tiered pathways, and intricate bureaucratic processes. This feat requires a thorough comprehension of the conditions for eligibility, various routes to dual citizenship, and the intricate steps involved in the documentation and application processes. The following section delves deeper into these components, aiming to provide a clear and comprehensive overview for those seeking dual citizenship. The path to US dual citizenship varies depending on individual circumstances, and can be achieved through birth, naturalization, or descent from a US citizen parent.

Eligibility Criteria

Holders of US dual citizenship often have to navigate complex matters such as travel considerations, cultural integration, and family legalities across both their countries of citizenship. Navigating the path to dual citizenship in the United States necessitates a profound understanding of its eligibility criteria. Whether it’s through birthright, acquisition by descent, or the process of naturalization, each method of acquiring US dual citizenship presents its own set of conditions and requirements. This segment aims to elucidate these various criteria, providing a comprehensive outlook to those aspiring for dual citizenship.

Birthright Citizenship

Under the doctrine of “jus soli,” or the right of soil, the U.S. confers citizenship to any individual born on its soil, regardless of the nationality of their parents. This legal principle allows individuals to possess dual citizenship if their parents retain their original nationality. It’s a birthright that paves a straightforward path to dual citizenship, providing the individual with the rights and obligations of both nations from the moment of birth.

Acquisition Through Ancestry or Descent

In contrast to birthright citizenship, dual citizenship can also be obtained through the principle of “jus sanguinis,” or the right of blood. In this scenario, children born overseas to one or more U.S. citizen parents may be granted U.S. citizenship. However, the implementation of this principle is often subject to specific conditions, such as the requirement for the U.S. citizen parent to have lived in the U.S. for a certain period prior to the child’s birth. Understanding these stipulations is essential for those seeking to acquire dual citizenship through ancestry or descent.

Naturalization Process for Non-Citizens

The path of naturalization offers another avenue for non-citizens to acquire U.S. citizenship and potentially hold dual citizenship. This rigorous process involves meeting several requirements, such as having a permanent resident status for a specified duration, exhibiting proficiency in English, and demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of U.S. history and government. Upon successful completion of the naturalization process, and provided that their country of origin allows dual citizenship, individuals can retain their original nationality while simultaneously acquiring U.S. citizenship.

Pathways to Dual Citizenship

Once an understanding of the eligibility criteria for dual citizenship is established, it’s crucial to explore the various routes available to confirm this dual nationality. From acquiring the Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and Certificate of Citizenship to undertaking the naturalization process, each pathway has its unique set of rules and procedures that must be followed diligently. US dual citizenship countries are those nations that recognize dual nationality alongside the United States.

The CRBA serves as an official declaration of the U.S. citizenship of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents. This document, issued by U.S. consular officers, is a critical stepping stone on the path to dual citizenship, validating the child’s status as a U.S. citizen from birth.

Another route to asserting dual citizenship is the Certificate of Citizenship. This is primarily for those who acquired U.S. citizenship after birth through a U.S. citizen parent. It’s a key document that solidifies an individual’s status as a U.S. citizen and can be instrumental in their pursuit of dual citizenship.

The naturalization process is a transformative journey for foreign-born individuals. It allows those who meet specific requirements to apply for U.S. citizenship, while also potentially retaining the citizenship of their birth country if it allows dual citizenship.

Documentation and Application Process

It is essential to check the US dual citizenship countries list to verify if the country you wish to hold dual citizenship with permits this status alongside US citizenship. To make the aspiration of dual citizenship a reality, it’s necessary to master the documentation and application process. This involves compiling necessary documents, adhering to specific filing procedures, and understanding the expected processing times and fees.

The US dual citizenship application process involves a range of steps, including the gathering of necessary documents, correctly filling out application forms, and meeting residency requirements. Essential documents include but are not limited to birth certificates, evidence of U.S. citizenship for parents (if applicable), proof of residence, and various others depending on the specific route to dual citizenship. Preparing these documents with accuracy is crucial for a successful application.

Equally important is the correct completion and filing of the necessary forms. Each pathway to dual citizenship comes with specific forms that need to be filled out and submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Lastly, applicants should be aware of the time it takes for their applications to be processed and the associated fees. This requires patience and budgeting, as processing times can vary, and there are typically substantial costs involved in the application process.

Managing Dual Citizenship

To acquire US dual citizenship, one must meet specific US dual citizenship requirements, which could include proof of US nationality in a parent, evidence of birth in the US, or successful completion of the naturalization process. Securing dual citizenship is a monumental achievement, but it also ushers in a new phase where managing the intricacies of this status becomes paramount. One must understand the rights and privileges it entails in the U.S., encompassing aspects like political participation, access to services, and job prospects. This section explores these aspects in depth, aiming to provide dual citizens with a comprehensive understanding of the privileges they can enjoy.

Rights and Privileges

One of the most empowering aspects of holding dual citizenship is the ability to participate politically in both countries. As a dual citizen, one can vote in elections, run for public office, and be a part of the democratic process in both nations, amplifying their voice and influence. This allows dual citizens to contribute to the civic life of both countries and have a say in shaping their future.

Another advantage that dual citizens can relish is unrestricted access to public services, such as education and healthcare, in both the U.S. and their other country of citizenship. This opens up a plethora of opportunities. For instance, they could avail themselves of subsidized tuition rates in both countries or access different healthcare systems, depending on which best suits their needs.

Holding dual citizenship also broadens the horizon of employment and business opportunities. A dual citizen has the right to work in both the U.S. and their other country of citizenship, without needing any work permits. This freedom to work across borders can lead to a wider array of job options and career growth. Furthermore, as a dual citizen, one can also establish businesses in both countries, exploiting the unique markets and business environments they offer.

Obligations and Responsibilities

Dual citizenship, while advantageous in many ways, also entails specific responsibilities and obligations. From adhering to tax regulations and fulfilling potential military service obligations to respecting residency requirements, it’s important for dual citizens to comprehend these duties and uphold them meticulously. This section illuminates these responsibilities, providing a clear picture of what dual citizenship necessitates.

Dual citizens are typically subject to tax regulations in both the U.S. and their other country of citizenship. This might involve filing tax returns and reporting income in both countries, a process that requires a nuanced understanding of international tax laws and potential tax treaties that might be in effect between the two countries.

Navigating Dual Nationality

Traveling as a dual citizen requires careful planning. There are specific rules concerning which passport to use when traveling, and dual citizens must follow these guidelines. Typically, when entering and leaving the U.S., they should use their U.S. passport.

Dual citizenship provides the opportunity to immerse oneself in two different cultures. While this can be enriching, it also requires the ability to navigate and integrate into both societies, balancing different customs, traditions, and social expectations.

U.S Immigration

July 1, 2023

U.S. Immigration Support is owned and operated by a private company. Our mission is to help immigrants and travelers through the complex United States immigration system with our do-it-yourself immigration guides and travel authorization consultancy. We are not a law firm, and our website does not provide legal advice. We are not affiliated with the the United States government. All applicants have the option file their submission directly at uscis.gov or travel.state.gov without our assistance. U.S. Immigration Support is a division of ETAS Travel LLC.

© 2024 U.S. IMMIGRATION SUPPORT - All Rights Reserved

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Dual Citizenship?

• Disadvantages
• How to Get Dual Citizenship

The Bottom Line

• Lifestyle Advice

Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons, and How it Works in the US

Does dual citizenship makes sense for you?

Charlene Rhinehart is a CPA , CFE, chair of an Illinois CPA Society committee, and has a degree in accounting and finance from DePaul University.

A person with dual citizenship is a citizen of two countries at the same time, which has both advantages and disadvantages because it is a complex legal status. One benefit of dual citizenship that is often cited is the ability of an individual to possess two passports. But, the potential drawback is the possibility of double taxation . We explore these and other pros and cons of being a citizen of two countries at once.

Key Takeaways

• Dual citizens enjoy certain benefits like living and working freely in two countries, owning property in both countries, and traveling between the countries with relative ease.
• Drawbacks of being a dual citizen include the potential for double taxation, the long and expensive process for obtaining dual citizenship, and the fact that you become bound by the laws of two nations.
• The easiest way to become a dual citizen is by birth, although many migrants can become naturalized citizens when they move to a new country or marry a foreign spouse.
• Applying for dual citizenship is a complicated and typically expensive process that may require the assistance of an immigration lawyer.

Denisfilm / Getty Images 

Dual citizenship, which is also called dual nationality, means holding citizenship of two countries at the same time. This means you can have citizenship through birth in one country and be naturalized in another. For instance, you may be a citizen of the United States and become a citizen of another country. This may happen automatically. For instance:

• A child born in the U.S. to parents who are residents of a foreign country may qualify for dual citizenship. Unless the parents are foreign diplomats, the child generally becomes a citizen of the U.S., in addition to any citizenship they inherit from their parents.
• Similarly, if a child of U.S. citizens is born overseas, they may automatically become a citizen of both the U.S. and their country of birth (although this is situational because it depends on that specific country’s laws).

Dual citizenship can also be achieved through specialized legal processes, such as when a foreign national is naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In this case, that person would become a citizen of both countries, unless their home country does not allow dual citizenship.

Some countries also allow people to become naturalized through investment. This means contributing to another country's economy or cultural development. For instance, you can secure citizenship in St Kitts and Nevis by making a minimum investment of $250,000 in the country.

Keep in mind that not every country recognizes dual citizenship. For instance, Austria, India, Japan, and Norway are some of the countries that prohibit holding two passports. As such, you may need to renounce your birth citizenship to become a citizen of a new country.

To become naturalized as a U.S. citizen, a foreign national must be a permanent resident for several years, pass a U.S. citizenship test, and meet certain other eligibility requirements.

Advantages of Dual Citizenship

Political rights.

Dual citizens can participate fully in the political life of every country where they have citizenship. This includes the right to vote, stand in elections, and make donations to political candidates.

Work and Travel

Unlike foreigners, dual citizens do not require a visa or permit to visit the countries where they have citizenship, and they can stay for as long as they like. They also have the right to seek work in both countries, while foreigners must pass through a lengthy process to get a work permit . They are also exempt from any restrictions on foreign businesspeople .

Social Services

Dual citizens can receive the benefits and privileges offered by each country where they are a citizen. For example, they may travel to receive medical treatment or procedures that are not available in the other country of their citizenship. They can also receive an education at the same price as domestic students.

Two Passports 

As a dual citizen, you are allowed to carry passports from both countries. For example, if you are a citizen of the U.S. and New Zealand, you can travel more easily between these two countries. Having a citizen's passport eliminates the need for long-stay visas and any questions about the purpose of your trip during the customs process.

Holding two passports also guarantees the individual the right to enter both the U.S. and New Zealand, which can be especially beneficial if you have family members to visit in both countries or if you are a student or a businessperson who studies or conducts affairs in both countries.

It's important to note that people who are dual citizens of the U.S. and another country must use a U.S. passport when traveling to and from the United States. This is often the case with many other countries.

Property Ownership 

Another benefit of dual citizenship is the ability to own property in either country. Some countries restrict land ownership to citizens only. As a legal citizen of two countries, you would be able to purchase property in either (or both) countries.

If you travel frequently between the two countries, this might be especially useful since property ownership might offer a more economical way to live in two places.

Cultural Education

As a dual citizen, you'll reap the benefits of being immersed in the culture of the two countries. Some government officials tend to be fond of dual citizenship because they see it as a way to promote the country's image as a prime destination for tourists .

Dual citizenship offers individuals the opportunity to learn about the history of both countries, learn two (or more) languages, and experience a different way of life.

Because dual citizenship is complex and the rules and laws regarding citizenship vary between different countries, it may be in your best interest to consult with qualified experts, including accountants and lawyers, about certain purchases or decisions related to employment and your finances.

Disadvantages of Dual Citizenship

Dual obligations .

As a dual citizen, you are bound by the laws of both countries. For example, if you are a citizen of the U.S. and a country with mandatory military service, you can lose your U.S. citizenship under certain circumstances. This includes serving as an officer in a foreign military engaged in a war against the U.S.

In general, U.S. policy recognizes that dual citizens might be legally obligated to fulfill military obligations abroad, and many can do so without jeopardizing their U.S. citizen status, but it is important to research each situation carefully.

Double Taxation 

For individuals who are dual citizens of the U.S. and another country, the U.S. imposes taxes on its citizens for income earned anywhere in the world. If you live in your country of dual residence that is not the U.S., you may owe taxes both to the U.S. government and to the country where the income was earned.

However, income tax treaties between the U.S. and other countries serve to effectively reduce or eliminate an individual's tax liability to avoid double taxation. For example, a treaty between the U.S. and New Zealand overrides the income tax laws of each country to avoid double taxation.

Even so, dual citizens may be required to file U.S. tax returns even if they are living and earning income in New Zealand. Because tax laws are complicated and can change from year to year, it's important for individuals facing this situation to consult with a qualified tax accountant .

U.S. citizens are required to report their overseas income, even if it is earned as a foreign citizen. The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion allows U.S. citizens to exclude up to $120,000 in 2023.

Barriers to Some Forms of Employment

Depending on your career path , dual citizenship can be a disadvantage. If you want to work with the U.S. government or your job requires access to information that is considered classified by the U.S. government, having dual citizenship may bar you from gaining the security clearance you need for this type of employment. Those born into dual citizenship may encounter fewer problems than those who actively sought it out. 

Complicated Process 

Sometimes dual citizenship happens automatically, such as when a child is born in the U.S. to foreign parents. In other cases, the process can take many years and can be extremely expensive and complicated. This can deter some people from pursuing dual citizenship.

How to Gain Dual Citizenship in the United States

There are many requirements for gaining dual citizenship if you were not born in the U.S. and want to become a U.S. citizen. In addition, the requirements for gaining citizenship in the U.S. may be different for individuals based on their circumstances and their other country (or countries) of residence.

To apply for U.S. citizenship, you must generally have lived in the U.S. as a permanent resident and have a green card continuously for five years (or three years if you are filing as the spouse of a U.S. citizen). Other eligibility requirements include being at least 18 years old when you apply and being able to read, write, and speak basic English.

You must pay a fee to apply for permanent residency and then another fee to file a citizenship application. The fee depends on what application you use and your filing category. This fee is set by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

For most people, the complicated process of gaining citizenship requires the help of an immigration lawyer. Immigration lawyers can help individuals achieve citizenship, although they also require fees for their services. To apply for permanent residency, most individuals file form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. To apply for naturalization, most individuals file form N-400, the application for naturalization.

How Do You Become a Dual Citizen?

The shortest path to becoming a dual citizen is through birth, having parents with dual citizenship, or being born in a country with birthright citizenship. Otherwise, you can obtain dual citizenship by marrying someone who is a citizen of a different country than yourself, or by being naturalized as a citizen in a different country. Some countries also offer citizenship based on ancestry.

Note that not all countries recognize dual citizenship, and in some cases, you might be forced to give up your original citizenship to become naturalized.

How Do You Become a Dual Citizen of Canada?

Canadian citizenship is increasingly attractive to prospective migrants, due to the attractive social programs and advanced economy. In order to qualify for Canadian citizenship, you must be a permanent resident in Canada and have lived there for three of the past five years, as well as file taxes as required. You also have to pass a test to show an understanding of citizenship rights and responsibilities, and demonstrate language skills in English or French.

Which Passport Should Dual Citizens Use?

Each country has its own laws and restrictions about who can enter its borders, and dual citizens should consider the advantages of both passports when crossing customs. For example, if a certain destination offers visa-free travel to country A and strict visa requirements for country B, it makes sense for a dual national to use country A's passport rather than country B's. Conversely, some countries may require you to use a specific passport, if you have it. The United States requires all dual citizens to enter on their U.S. passport.

Dual citizenship is when a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time, with all the rights and privileges that come with it. Dual citizens can travel freely in both countries, as well as work, do business, own land, and do other activities that may be restricted to foreigners; however, there are also disadvantages, as dual citizens may face extra taxes or even military service.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. " Dual Nationality ."

The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis. " Apply for a Passport ."

Endevio. " Understanding Dual Citizenship, the Benefits, and the Process ."

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. " Become a U.S. Citizen Through Naturalization ."

The New Zealand Government. " Dual Citizenship ."

USA.gov. " Renounce or lose your citizenship ."

Internal Revenue Service. " Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About International Individual Tax Matters ," Select "General FAQs: 1. I’m a U.S. citizen living and working outside of the United States for many years. Do I still need to file a U.S. tax return?"

Internal Revenue Service. " United States - New Zealand Income Tax Convention ," Pages 20-21.

Internal Revenue Service. " Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About International Individual Tax Matters ," Select "General FAQs: 2. I pay income tax in a foreign country. Do I still have to file a U.S. income tax return even though I do not live in the United States?"

Internal Revenue Service. " IRS Provides Tax Inflation Adjustments for Tax Year 2023 ."

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. " I Am Married to a U.S. Citizen ."

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. " Fee Schedule ," Pages 4, 12.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. " I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status ."

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. " N-400, Application for Naturalization ."

Government of Canada. " I Am A Citizen of Another Country. Will I Lose That Citizenship If I Become a Canadian? "

Government of Canada. " What Are the Requirements of Becoming a Canadian Citizen? "

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

The New York Times

Advertisement

The Opinion Pages

Dual citizenship: as it should be.

Peter Spiro is a law professor at Temple University and a contributor to the international law blog Opinio Juris . He is writing a book about dual citizenship.

Updated January 30, 2017, 12:58 PM

There was a delicious irony in having a conservative like Michele Bachmann point the way on a post-modern phenomenon like dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is an irreversible incident of globalization. Its acceptance appropriately recognizes multiple national identities in a more mobile world.

Dual citizenship has never been illegal under U.S. law. The U.S. historically relied on the laws of other countries to police the status. But the rest of the world has moved to embrace dual citizenship to the end of cementing ties to prosperous emigrant populations. Nineteen out of the top 20 source countries for immigrants now allow their citizens to maintain the status even as they naturalize in the United States.

The overwhelming majority of new Americans are 'ampersand Americans.'

The overwhelming majority of new Americans are “ampersand Americans,” retaining not just the sentimental but also the formal tie to their homelands.

Native-born Americans who move to other countries, meanwhile, will often acquire citizenship in their new country of residence while retaining their U.S. passports. An increasing number of Americans are reestablishing ties to ancestral homelands while they remain in place here. That was the case with Bachmann’s husband, whose parents emigrated from Switzerland. Thousands are acquiring Irish and Italian citizenship on the basis of a grandparent birth. The descendants of Jews who fled the Nazi regime are reacquiring German citizenship. And those born today to “mixed status” parents are no longer forced to choose between them.

As a political matter, efforts to outlaw dual citizenship have gone nowhere. The issue does not map out onto putatively parallel debates about immigration. Although many Americans now have dual citizenship on both sides of the southern border, Mexico does not cast a long shadow on the question. Powerful constituencies across the political board accept the quiet transformation of the status from anomaly to commonplace.

That’s as it should be. Dual citizenship poses few concrete problems as the world moves away from zero-sum competition among states. Acceptance of the status allows the many individuals with multiple national attachments to actuate those identities. In this respect, dual citizenship represents a kind of freedom of association, a form of voluntary affiliation to be protected, not condemned.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate .

Topics: Culture , World , international relations

Citizens Without Borders

An Exclusive Relationship

Can dual citizens be good americans, citizenship as it should be, a have and have-not issue.

The Solution to ‘Brain Drain’

Related Discussions

Recent Discussions

Immigration help for your business

• News & Reports

Dual Citizenship, Explained

How to get dual citizenship in the united states.

In this guide

• What Are The Benefits of Dual Nationality?
• How to Get Dual Citizenship
• Related Information

What is dual citizenship?

Dual citizenship —or dual nationality— is when you are a citizen of two different countries at the same time. In the context of the U.S., it means you’re both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another country. Not every country allows dual citizenship, and the rules vary among those that do.

Does the United States allow dual citizenship?

Yes, the U.S. allows dual citizenship by default. The government does not require naturalized U.S. citizens to give up their citizenship in their country of origin. Although the Oath of Allegiance to the United States speaks of renouncing “allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, U.S. immigration law does not explicitly address the topic of dual citizenship. The best summarization of the U.S. government’s position on dual citizenship lies in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion , which explains that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” The U.S. Department of State also has a more technical discussion of dual citizenship .

Just because the United States allows dual citizenship, however, doesn’t necessarily mean your country of origin does, too. Some countries, such as China and India , will not recognize your status as a naturalized American on their soil. You may even lose your citizenship automatically in those countries upon becoming a U.S. citizen. It’s therefore important to understand the dual citizenship rules in your country of origin before pursuing U.S. citizenship.

Not sure which visa is right for you? Take our free assessment to get a customized plan.

Having U.S. citizenship, in addition to citizenship in another country, provides many advantages that could help you meet certain goals. It’s important to be aware, however, of the obligations, you would be taking on as a naturalized American. (Our detailed guide to the rights and duties of U.S. citizens also has more information for those who seek only U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship.)

Rights of dual citizens in the United States

You can work anywhere. You can apply for employment anywhere in the United States without first obtaining a work visa. As a dual citizen, however, you could be overlooked for certain federal jobs, which often require a security clearance and the ability to maintain confidentiality of classified state information. That could be a challenge if you’re also loyal to a nation that has conflicting interests with the United States.

You can travel without restrictions. You can travel abroad for as long as you’d like without any risk of losing your U.S. citizenship. And if you plan to stay outside of the United States for longer than a year, you won’t need a re-entry permit in order to return, as is the case for green card holders (permanent residents).

You can obtain green cards for your family. Your parents, adult children, and siblings can apply for their own green cards.

You can vote. You can vote in any U.S. election. In the United States, only citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections.

You can attend school. You can enroll in a U.S. school without a student visa and without paying international student tuition rates.

You can access public benefits, if necessary. Assuming you meet the eligibility requirements, you can apply for public benefits, including access to tuition assistance that’s available only to U.S. citizens.

Obligations of dual citizens in the United States

You must pay U.S. taxes for life. As a U.S. citizen, you must file (and pay, if necessary) U.S. income and other taxes for life — even for the income you earn outside of the United States — regardless of where you live. This means that you could owe taxes on the same income to both the United States and to your other country of citizenship unless that country has an agreement with the United States that allows dual citizens to avoid “double taxation.”

You must disclose any previous encounters with law enforcement. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers who evaluate citizenship applications scrutinize applicants’ backgrounds very heavily. Certain types of violations , such as immigration fraud, drug abuse, or domestic violence, could expose you to the possibility of deportation. If you’re concerned about your history with law enforcement, it’s important to seek legal help before applying for naturalization.

You must serve in the military if required by law. All males who have lived in the United States or received a green card between the ages of 18 and 26 — unless they had an immigration status other than “green card holder” — are required to register with the Selective Service System . In case of war, a U.S. citizen must serve in the U.S. military (in combat or otherwise) if called upon to do so by the government.

You must serve on a jury when summoned. Jury duty is mandatory for all U.S. citizens. You may not necessarily need to serve, however. The judge and attorneys in a legal proceeding must select you as a jury panelist in order to actually serve. The selection process happens after you are summoned to court.

How can I obtain dual citizenship in the United States?

There is no application or form available to file for “dual citizenship” in the United States. Obtaining dual citizenship simply means applying for a second citizenship.

Before you apply for U.S. citizenship as your second citizenship status , it’s crucial to contact the embassy or consulate of your country of origin to find out whether that country allows dual citizenship in the first place. Otherwise, you may lose your citizenship in that country without knowing.

Once you’ve determined that your country of origin will recognize your U.S. citizenship status, you will need to make sure you’ve satisfied all naturalization requirements (unless you qualify for U.S. citizenship through a parent ). You can then begin the naturalization process by submitting Form N-400 (officially called the “Application for Naturalization”) to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Our detailed guide to the naturalization process explains the rest of the steps, eligibility criteria, requirements, costs, and more.

When should I apply for dual citizenship?

You can apply any time after meeting the eligibility requirements for naturalization , which is usually 3–5 years after getting a green card.

How long is the process?

Filing your citizenship application with USCIS is only the first step of the process. Overall, naturalization can take up to 1.6 years, depending on the USCIS field office that receives your application and how soon you start the process. (See our detailed guide to the naturalization timeline for more information.)

Unsure about which immigration path is best for you? Answer a few simple questions to get started.

Countries that Allow Dual Citizenship (or Don’t)

More than 75 percent of the world’s countries allowed dual citizenship in 2020. Their rules, however, are not uniform. The following table lists the 10 countries with the highest green card holder populations who are eligible to naturalize in the United States , as well as whether those countries recognize dual citizenship:

The above list was compiled using research from official and unofficial sources and is intended for informational purposes only. Dual citizenship laws are often complex and can change at any time. As such, Boundless cannot guarantee that the information above is accurate and/or current. It is therefore best to consult the embassy or consulate of your country of origin to learn about its most current dual citizenship policy before applying for naturalization in the United States.

In the U.S., anyone who fulfills the requirements for naturalization may be able to become a U.S. citizen. However, you should contact the embassy or consulate of the other country you hold citizenship with to see what the requirements are for your country.

In the U.S. you are eligible to vote as long as you’re a citizen and you fulfill any other requirements, such as residency and age.

If you are a U.S. citizen with more than one passport, you must use your U.S. passport to enter and leave the U.S.. If you are not traveling to the U.S., you may use whichever passport you prefer.

Being a U.S. citizen gives you all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as listed above. If you’re a green card holder , you’ll still be able to work and live in the U.S. but you may have different obligations. For example, if you want to leave the U.S. for more than a year, you might have to apply for a re-entry permit before you leave.

Yes, you may hold citizenship in three countries. The same rules apply as for dual citizenship — not every country allows for multiple citizenships, so you would need to check whether your country of origin permits triple citizenship.

Generally, if a country allows dual citizenship it most likely allows triple citizenship. It’s best to check the embassy or consulate website of the countries to be sure.

Yes, the U.S. does allow for triple citizenship and does not require naturalized U.S. citizens to give up citizenship in their home country or other countries.

Immigration guideS

• How to Avoid Common Naturalization Traps
• How to Complete the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400)
• Supporting Documents Needed to Apply for Citizenship
• The Benefits of American Citizenship
• U.S. Citizenship Requirements
• What Is the Cost of Applying for Naturalization?
• The U.S. Citizenship Timeline
• Getting Ready for Your Naturalization Interview
• Common Questions to Expect in Your Citizenship Interview
• Getting Ready for Your Naturalization Exam
• The Oath of Allegiance Ceremony of Naturalization

Article Contents

Apply for your visa with boundless., unlimited live support. lawyer review. money-back guarantee., which service.

Looks like you were working on a application just now. Applicants typically only require one service at a time.

You unlocked a $50 discount!

Congrats! Because your friend referred you, your application with Boundless is discounted. Start the application with Boundless within the next 14 days, and you'll save $50.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Dual citizenship and American national identity

Related Papers

Digital Metrics

Khursheed Wadia

Rubén G. Rumbaut

This paper presents and analyzes findings from the first National Survey of Immigration Scholars (NASIS), designed specifically to inquire into the social origins and research orientations of scholars who specialize in immigration studies and who are most responsible for producing our scholarly knowledge base. The NASIS sample consists of immigration scholars in a wide range of disciplines and at all stages in their careers. Unlike the nascent scholarship on immigration at the turn of the 19th century, the present era has seen many immigrants themselves become leading scholars of immigration in certain disciplines, and children, and especially grandchildren of immigrants are prominent immigration scholars in others. The finding that almost half of today's immigration scholars are themselves of immigrant stock, including the majority of the sociologists and more than a third of the anthropologists and historians, underscores the profound impact of immigration on the field itself. Simply put, immigration is producing many of the scholars who study it and who will tell its story.

The SAGE Encyclopedia of World Poverty

Amitabh V Dwivedi

The Center for American Progress (CAP), founded in 2003, is an independent nonpartisan educational organization. Its motto is “progressive ideas for a strong, just and free America.” This institute is a public policy research and advocacy organization that is “dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.”

Erwin de Leon

Journal of College Student Development

Alonso R Reyna Rivarola

Over the last decade, institutions of higher education have begun to respond to the plight and mobilization of undocumented students by institutionalizing undocumented student support services. Undocumented student resource centers (USRCs) are a product of such efforts. USRCs are physical spaces on higher education campuses where centralized services and resources for undocumented students are provided. USRC staff strive to create welcoming and supportive student­centered environments that enhance students’ experiences, nurture civic and community engagement, and promote their mental health and well­being (Canedo Sanchez & So, 2015). Further, they seek to actively address exclu­sionary institutional policies and historical service gaps in higher education, a system that was created without critical consideration of undocumented students and students from families with mixed immigration statuses.

Juan Pedroza

Helga Leitner

RELATED PAPERS

Heather McAuslane

Adli Tıp Uzmanları Derneği

zehtiye füsun yaşar

Diabetologia

Ambady Ramachandran

Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment

Seong Cheon Kim

Chika Maida Yanti

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations

Selen Zeliha Mart Kömürcü

Revista chilena de pediatría

Marianela Arevalo

Carlos Molina del Pozo

Marliss Taylor

AGRIVOLTAICS2021 CONFERENCE: Connecting Agrivoltaics Worldwide

Misri Gozan

Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery

Yolanda Carrascal

Innovation in Aging

Francesca Falzarano

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B

Herbert Roesky

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

Josep Closa

João Paulo Andrade Gomes

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

Carlos Cortés-Albayay

Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian research

Martina Rasticova

The Journal of Legislative Studies

Riccardo Pelizzo

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

Karen Kling

Mineralogical Magazine

Maria Clara Ferreira Magalh?

Journal of Education and Training Studies

Lutfi Incikabi

Temy Setiawan

买澳大利亚维多利亚大学毕业证书成绩单 办理澳洲Victoria成绩单澳洲学历文凭

Biophysical Journal

Claus Richter

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons Research Paper

Introduction, dual citizenship benefits, dual citizenship drawbacks, dual citizenship global changes, multiple citizenship facts, u.s dual citizenship, conclusion/ future of dual citizenship, works cited.

This paper tackles various issues to do with citizenship. A large part of the discussion will be on multiple citizenship issues. Generally, the word citizenship refers to the linkage between a person and a certain state. A person is said to be a citizen of a certain country if he or she legally belongs to that country.

Some states have allowed their citizens to acquire citizenships in other countries and this has been a subject of debate. Such people are said to have multiple citizenship or dual citizenships. In respect to the social contract theory, rights as well as responsibilities accompany the citizenship status. The most common means of becoming a citizen of a particular country is through birth or parentage.

This is normally the first citizenship a person earns. An individual can also earn citizenship through marriage and naturalization. The dual citizen, in respect to either of the country’s jurisdiction, which considers such an individual as its citizen, may be compelled to observe all the country’s laws, inclusive of involuntarily serving within its military service (Kalekin-Fishman and Pirrko 94). Dual citizenship is of great benefit to an individual.

However, the governing authorities should review the potential issues associated with it prior to legalizing it. As at present, there is no internationally formulated principle governing dual citizenship. Therefore, every country remains free to treat individuals who possess dual citizenship in accordance to its legislation.

As mentioned earlier, dual citizenship comes with many benefits. First, it gives that particular individual practical advantage in terms of employment as well as social security (Bauböck 60). On failing to get employment in one country, a dual citizen could be lucky to be employed in the other countries. Persons who possess dual citizenship tend to enjoy an increased sense of belonging due to their vibrant individual ties to various countries.

In addition, dual citizen offers individuals the opportunity to buy commodities within the country that has lower taxes. In case of war, hard economic times, or any kind of instability in one of the countries, the dual citizen is free to shift residence to the other country without seeking asylum or becoming a refugee (Faist 8). Moreover, the dual citizens have the privilege to get education from institutions that they consider the best amongst the ones in countries where they are citizens.

For instance, a U.S. citizen who also possesses British citizenship may choose to pursue his or her education within Britain if he/she considers Britain better than the U.S in terms of education. In short, these people have the privilege of seeking the services of the country that offers the best among those, which they own citizenship. Above all, dual citizens have the right to own property in any of the countries that recognizes them as legal citizens.

Dual citizenship is associated with various negative impacts. For example, many people consider it to impact negatively on the national cohesiveness of a certain country. Dual citizenship is said to hinder cultural assimilation, aggravate political process disconnection, and contribute significantly towards the degradation of national cohesiveness (Hansen and Weil 110). Many people argue that countries should not legalize dual citizenship in order to maintain a vibrant culture along with national identity.

Dual citizenship critics assert that the gaining of a second citizenship without experiencing any pain, for instance, public benefits loss, job opportunities loss, and healthcare benefits loss amongst other losses from the mother country belittles the actual meaning of citizenship. Citizens residing in countries such as the U.S. have the notion that individuals seek dual citizenship simply due to selfish gains.

Dual citizenship is said to nullify the substantial, psychological, as well as transformational change that affects a person who gains a foreign citizenship by naturalization. The securing of an extra citizenship by dual citizenship is actually self –centered as it contradicts the true description of citizenship because individuals are able to access better economic opportunities without any struggles.

Besides, such individuals are always free to discard such citizenship in the event that it does not benefit them (Faist 6). In countries that are considered civic nations, the government is less concerned about the impact that dual citizenship has on national cohesiveness than in countries that can be considered ethnic nations. An example of the latter class of countries is the U.S.

On the other hand, dual citizenship is also associated with the foreign allegiance outlook. Countries consider citizens with dual citizens as nationals who have divided loyalty. This is because they have the potential of acting opposite to the interests of one of the governments that have accorded them citizenship.

After all, they can quit such a country and go to live in the other one. Moreover, such citizens can obtain confidential information about country A and pass to country B while the two countries are experiencing poor democratic relations or if the two countries are at war with each other.

Consequently, such citizens may have trouble in securing government employment in situations where there is need for security clearance. In nations such as the U.S., there are two distinct classes of security issues, which are associated with dual citizenship. These include the foreign preference along with foreign influence. Despite the widespread misconceptions, not dual citizenship alone hinders individuals from gaining or maintaining security clearance in the U.S. (Hansen and Weil 118).

Actually, when one is applying for security clearance as a dual citizen and basing his or her application on the citizenship of his/her parents only, mitigation is applied. Problems can however emerge if a person uses entitlements for U.S. citizens unfairly when he/she is not a U.S. citizen.

In other cases, dual citizenship can bring about extra tax liability. In some countries, Income source and residence form the basis for determining whether an individual will pay tax. Concerning residency, most countries tax income earned by individuals regardless of the nature of citizenship, and regardless of whether the individual earned the income from the specific country or overseas.

On the side of source, the countries’ governing bodies tax every income generated within its borders, without putting into consideration whether the affected person is a resident, citizen, or even non-resident. Eritrea and the U.S are countries that undertake taxation based on citizenship.

In the cases where taxation is carried out in terms of citizenship, the citizens’ global income is subjected to taxation without putting into consideration whether they reside within the mother country or not (Kalekin-Fishman and Pirrko 97). Therefore, in such a scenario, a dual citizen may end up experiencing tax liability by becoming a victim of double taxation. This will definitely give such a person hard economic times. However, some countries have entered into tax treaties with the objective of protecting citizens from double taxation.

It is also widely believed that individuals who become dual citizens voluntarily have the potential of interfering negatively with community protection. In most of the cases, such individuals do not contribute to the economic welfare of the countries that have accorded them citizenship.

In addition, such individuals possess no factual attachments to the countries which they seek protection. The dual citizens can end up creating trouble in one of the countries in order to escape to the other country in the event that things get out of hand. Actually, some countries consider dual citizens valueless (Bauböck 69).

Dual citizens can also experience various problems while making international travels. In numerous nations, inclusive of those that recognize dual citizenship, the established laws do not recognize dual citizenship explicitly. These countries may only recognize dual citizens as citizens of one of the countries they own citizenship.

Dual citizens travelling to countries that recognize them as their legal citizens may be compelled to gain entry or exit from the country using the specific country’s passport (Kalekin-Fishman 102). To exemplify this, South Africans who have dual citizenship and are 18 years or more are not allowed to use passports belonging to other countries to enter or leave the country.

The issue of dual citizenship becomes a hot debate if it concerns politicians. Due to the nature of their job, many people believe that countries should not allow them to have dual citizenship. This is because their electorate expects them to remain loyal to their government alone.

In addition, some countries may also deny government employees dual citizenship (Faist 4). However, some countries allow government employees to become dual citizens. For example, even as a governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger had dual citizenship. He was in possession of Austrian and U.S. citizenships.

People have often questioned the limits of dual citizenship especially in terms of immigrant integration as well as societal integration processes.

In order to elaborate the multiple citizenship concepts further, academicians have come up with other conceptualizations such as global citizenship, partial citizenship, post-national citizenship, transnational citizenship, and cosmopolitan citizenship, overlapping citizenship along with many others (Hansen and Weil 115). Scholars have established that within the dual citizenship scenario, there still exist various inequalities especially in relation to membership.

For the case of undocumented well skilled laborers along with migrants, countries should view formal citizenship as the vital individual rights expression process. This is just an example which points at the citizenship concept limits once linked to the political citizenship liberal interpretation while foregrounding the citizenship dimensions, both socially as well as economically (Hansen and Weil 106).

It is vital to note that within the previous several decades, the dual citizenship concept has experienced steady increase in tolerance despite the significantly uneven pace. This trend, which many assume as a ‘bumpy-line’ concerning the escalating tolerance, brings about the path-dependent development.

Nevertheless, it is evident that various developmental pressures have instigated the transformation of citizenship. About the path-dependent procedure, it is evident that once state organizations, or even the states which can be termed as collective actors, commence moving towards a specific direction the reversal costs are relatively high.

However, this may be simplified by the emergence of other choices that affect decision-making (Kalekin-Fishman and Pirrko 98). The path-dependent impact emerges once a former decision, rule, or even norm reinforces itself, in the event that the decision partially dictates the subsequent events course. Decisions reached by global organizations, along with states, over time minimize the available options within the subsequent instances therefore encouraging continuity through the original choice retention.

The mechanism of path-dependence has turned out in uncovering the major factors leading to the general international trend of dual citizenship tolerance within the post-national viewpoint. The previously mentioned mechanism can also assist in comprehending the factors, which have brought about the diverse paths adopted by certain immigration states.

In comprehending the dual citizenship’s tolerance growth, through the path-dependent process, it is possible to identify the ‘positive’ effects (Bauböck 63). These ‘positive’ effects are simply will of course boost the economic gains. The contextual conditions, which have fostered the dual citizenship’s tolerance growth, are such as the verity that multiple ties within the state level gain recognition by various sovereign states. Emigration states are presently demonstrating more interest in their overseas citizens.

On the other hand, immigration states are beginning, in certain cases, to soften their stand on unilateral allegiance, offering support to the equal rights principles. Within the global realm, conventions particularly the multi-lateral ones, have been gradually more tolerant of their citizens ties to numerous states.

State authorities have also gradually stopped viewing dual citizens as a threat to security because most of the democratic countries have stopped going into wars. Even though various incidents such as the one that happened on US bombing might have affected the dual citizenship concept, it is only the non-citizens’ civil rights which were mainly affected. In short, it is quite clear that many nations are now recognizing and welcoming dual citizenship.

From the above discussion, it is understandable that the dual citizenship concept will remain a hotly debated issue both empirically as well as normatively (Hansen and Weil 111). Nevertheless, extensive studies have established three facts, which will remain to be true in relation to dual citizenship. In the first place, one can conclude that dual citizenship cannot be avoided totally and nations that are against it will have to bear the situation.

This is because no single state can dictate the nationality requirements of another state. In addition, there is no international law with a universal nationality description. Besides, it is not possible to control the movement of individuals between various nations, (Faist 2). On giving birth in a different country, the child born acquires two citizenships. That of the parent’s country and that of the country he or she is born.

Other dual citizenship supporters such as Peter Spiro allege that dual citizenship will be welcome by more and more countries because it turns out as a value generator. The liberal democracies such as the U.S will view dual citizenship as the perfect way of exporting the liberal democratic ideals to other overseas countries. In the event that dual citizens possess citizenships of lesser democratic or simply undemocratic nations, the exporting of liberal democratic ideals will not only be valuable to the West but also the whole world in general.

On the other hand, despite the widespread allegations that dual citizenship impedes integration, it actually furthers integration. This thesis can be proven by reviewing the relationship that exists between the concept of dual nationality and that of naturalization.

In countries such as Germany, academicians in the country have shown that the country experiences dismal naturalization rates due to the dual citizenship prohibition. On the other side, countries like Holland have experienced the actual benefits of dual citizenship along with naturalization toleration.

Many consider the distinguishing effect as both psychological and mechanical (Faist and Kivisto 56). In the German scenario, citizens remain reluctant to surrender the second passport’s instrumental benefits such as inheritance rights, the right to secure employment overseas, pension rights along with many others. The impeding of integration by dual citizenship is negative but it is counteracted by the fact that countries such as United Kingdom view it as a pivotal or secondary element within its integration strategies.

The United States is one of the countries that have legalized dual citizenship. Even though the laws of the U.S. recognize dual citizenship, the ruling government in the country fails to address it more comprehensively within its policies (Bauböck 58).

U.S. authorities tend to direct divided attention towards the issue due to the problems associated with it. Nevertheless, it is vital to note that foreign citizens do not withdraw their original citizenship upon becoming citizens of the U.S. Individuals who, through naturalization, obtain the citizenship of the United States may also retain their initial citizenship.

However, it is vital to put into consideration that this is only possible in cases where the individuals have moved from countries that permit dual citizenship (Faist and Kivisto 76). Event though there is no official data regarding the population of dual citizens within the United States, it is highly likely that their figures are growing drastically. This is because both legal and illegal immigration is increasingly taking place.

Other reasons for the increase of cases of dual citizenship in the U.S. are that naturalization petitions are increasing at an alarming rate, and the highest source countries are making legal changes encouraging naturalization within the United States (Boll and Kenneth 87). This means that dual citizenship in the U.S. will persist and continue increasing.

Dual citizenship gives an individual an opportunity to belong and enjoy the benefits of belonging to different countries. A person is in a position to get the best education, health care and a variety of other services. This would not be the case if one belongs to only one country, which offers low quality services. Citizenship can be acquired through birth, parentage, marriage, or naturalization. However dual citizenship is of great advantage to an individual, it can also have negative impacts on the individual and more so to the respective countries.

A person may end up being taxed more than once and a country’s secrets may be leaked to countries that pose danger among other issues. Acquiring dual citizenship has become and continues to become easier than it was there before (Kivisto and Faist 134). This is because of the laws that have been passed by various nations in favor of dual citizenship. Increased social changes like inter-racial marriages, globalization of businesses and increased coordination of development among nations promote dual citizenship.

Moreover, the advancement in technology especially in the communications sector has made the process of acquiring dual citizenship very easy. Besides, with the improved communications technology, nations will no longer view dual citizens as a threat to their security because they will be in a position to obtain any necessary information from the respective governments with a lot of ease.

Bauböck, Rainer. Migration and Citizenship: Legal Status, Rights and Political Participation . Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press, 2006. Print.

Boll, Alfred, and Keith, Kenneth. Multiple Nationality and International Law . Leiden: Nijhoff, 2007. Print.

Faist, Thomas. Dual Citizenship in Europe: From Nationhood to Societal Integration . Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Print.

Faist, Thomas and Peter, Kivisto. Dual Citizenship in Global Perspective: From Unitary to Multiple Citizenship . Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.

Hansen, Randall, and Patrick, Weil. Dual Nationality, Social Rights, and Federal Citizenship in the U. S. and Europe: The Reinvention of Citizenship . New York: Berghahn Books, 2002. Print.

Kalekin-Fishman, Devorah, and Pitkänen, Pirrko. Multiple Citizenship As a Challenge to European Nation-States . Rotterdam: Sense, 2007. Print.

Kalekin-Fishman, Devorah. An Emerging Institution?: Multiple Citizenship in Europe – Views of Officials . Bern: Lang, 2008. Print.

Kivisto, Peter, and Thomas, Faist. Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2007. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 26). Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concept-of-citizenship/

"Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons." IvyPanda , 26 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/concept-of-citizenship/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons'. 26 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons." March 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concept-of-citizenship/.

1. IvyPanda . "Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons." March 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concept-of-citizenship/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Dual Citizenship Pros and Cons." March 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concept-of-citizenship/.

• Naturalization Processes in the USA and the UK
• The United States Naturalization Test
• The Naturalization Act of 1790
• Immigration, Voting and Naturalization Laws
• Immigration and Naturalization Service Officer Career
• The Naturalization and Residency Department in the UAE
• Race and Citizenship in the Early Republic
• Qatari Citizenship Access for Foreign Workers
• The concept of citizenship in the United States
• An Anglo-American Republic: Racial Citizenship in 1760-1860
• Government’s control versus Freedom of Speech and Thoughts
• Cannabis Smoking in Canada
• Does the Vice Presidency Have Power Because the Office Has Grown or Because Power Is Tendered by the Sitting President?
• The one party system in Japan
• A comparison of formulation of government policies; Japan and Britain

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. citizenship

Learn about naturalization, dual citizenship, and proving or renouncing your citizenship.

Become a U.S. citizen through naturalization

Naturalization is the process of voluntarily becoming a United States citizen. Learn about the steps that lead to U.S. citizenship, including the naturalization test.

Proving U.S. citizenship

Learn how to get a Certificate of Citizenship or Naturalization. Or prove your U.S. citizenship without a birth certificate if you were born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen.

How to get dual citizenship or nationality

Having dual citizenship, also known as dual nationality, means being a citizen of the United States and another country at the same time.

Renounce or lose your citizenship

Renouncing and losing your citizenship both result in no longer being a U.S. citizen. Learn how to voluntarily renounce your citizenship or how you might involuntarily lose it.

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Create Account

Citizenship and Naturalization

Citizenship is a unique bond that unites people around civic ideals and a belief in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Depending on your situation, there may be different ways to obtain citizenship. 

• Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) .
• Acquisition of citizenship is obtained through U.S. citizenship parents either at birth or after birth, but before the age of 18.

Explore the links below to help you determine what applies to you. Depending on your situation, there may be other requirements that you must fulfill. 

• I am a Lawful Permanent Resident of 5 Years
• I am Married to a U.S. Citizen
• I am Serving in the U.S. Military  
• I am the Child of a U.S. Citizen

Also, visit our Citizenship for Military Family Members  page.

For more information, see the USCIS Policy Manual Citizenship and Naturalization Guidance .

Additional Resources

• Thinking About Applying for Naturalization? (PDF, 692.82 KB)
• 10 Steps to Naturalization (PDF, 790.4 KB)
• Filing Fees
• Naturalization Fact Sheet
• Dual Nationality

Philippine Consulate General

The Republic of the Philippines

PHILIPPINE CONSULATE GENERAL

New york, usa.

dual citizenship (ra 9225)

Republic act 9225 otherwise known as the citizenship retention and reacquisition act of 2003 (more popularly known as the dual citizenship law) enables former natural-born filipinos who have become naturalized citizens of another country to retain/reacquire their philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the republic of the philippines before a philippine consular officer. upon retaining or reacquiring their philippine citizenship, they shall enjoy full civil, economic and political rights as philippine citizens..

TABLE  OF CONTENTS

How to Apply

Requirements for Principal Applicant

Requirements for Each Dependent Child (below 18 years old)

Petition for Inclusion of Dependent/s under RA 9225

Next Step/s After Issuance of Dual Citizenship Papers (For Principal and Dependent Child who is former natural born-Filipino)

Next Step/s After Issuance of Dual Citizenship Papers (For Dependent born in the US to parents who were already US citizens at the time of child’s birth)

Downloadable Forms

Dual Citizenship FAQ

Natural-born Filipinos are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. These are persons:

1. Born after January 17, 1973, whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines at the time of their birth; 2. Born before January 17, 1973 to a: a. Filipino father; or b. Filipino mother and that person elects Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Under the principle of derivative citizenship, unmarried children below eighteen (18) years of age, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted, of former Filipino parents who retained/reacquired their Philippine citizenship under this law, may also be deemed Philippine citizens, if they are included as dependents in the parent’s application for retention/reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, and the requisite fees paid

HOW TO APPLY

Step 1. set up an appointment, step 2. proceed to the consulate on the appointment date and time.

Wearing a face mask at all times inside the premises of the Philippine Center is recommended.

STEP 3. Proceed to the Consulate for interview/Oath-taking on your booked appointment for the following:

• Bring a printed copy of the e-receipt;
• Bring original and submit two copies of required documents, including required photos;
• Interview; and
• Oath-taking (takes place once in the afternoon for all approved applicants).

CORE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL APPLICANT

A. two (2) duly accomplished dual citizenship application forms.

Download an Adobe-fillable dual application form  here .

For instruction on how to fill out the form, please click here .

Applicant must not sign the application. This must be signed before a Consular Officer during your appointment.

B. PSA Birth Certificate 

One original and two (2) photocopies of the Birth Certificate issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA or formerly National Statistics Office/NSO). 

If you do not have a PSA-authenticated birth certificate, you can order one online through http://www.psaserbilis.com.ph OR the applicant may wish to designate a representative to secure it from the PSA and send it via courier.

If there is no record of birth with the PSA, check first with the local civil registrar (LCR) where the birth took place.  If LCR birth record is available, the LCR should forward/endorse its copy to the PSA.  If LCR does not have a copy of applicant’s birth record, the applicant or his/her duly appointed representative may apply for late registration of birth at the local civil registrar at the place of birth.

The applicant should request for a PSA-authenticated birth certificate once the LCR have endorsed the applicant’s birth record to the PSA.

C. Latest Philippine Passport (if available)

Original and two (2) photocopies of the data page of latest Philippine passport.

D. PSA Marriage Certificate / US Marriage Certificate

Required for married women.  One original and two (2) photocopies.  Please see above on how to secure a PSA-issued document.

E. Death Certificate 

Required for widow.  One original and two (2) photocopies.

F. Divorce Decree or PSA Marriage Certificate with Annotation on Divorce

Required for applicant who has previous marriages or divorced. One original and two (2) photocopies

G. US Naturalization Certificate

Original and two (2) photocopies.

If the original is not available, applicant must obtain a digital copy from the US Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS).

This can be requested through their website: www.uscis.gov/FOIA

H. Valid US Passport

Original and two (2) photocopies of the data page of the valid US passport. 

I. Applicant’s Photos

On appointment date, bring three (3) colored, identical 2″x 2″ photos, with plain white background. Applicant must not be wearing eyeglasses.

J. Notarized Affidavit of Explanation on How You Attained US Citizenship

Required for adult applicants who were included as dependents when their parent/s were naturalized. Attach to the affidavit a copy of your US Certificate of Citizenship (if available) and the US Naturalization Certificate of your parent/s. Click here to download affidavit.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH DEPENDENT CHILD (BELOW 18 YEARS OLD)

(Personal Appearance not necessary)

For minor children born in the US: (a) if the principal applicant was already a US citizen at the time of the birth, the child/ren should be included as dependents in the petition.

(b) If at least one parent was still a Philippine citizen when the child was born, there is no need to include them as dependents in the petition. Their birth has to be reported to the Consulate instead.

For reporting a birth of a child born under our jurisdiction, please click here: http://newyorkpcg.org/pcgny/civil-registration/report-of-birth-of-a-filipino-abroad/

A. PSA Birth Certificate / US Birth Certificate

One original and two (2) photocopies of the Birth Certificate issued either by the PSA/NSO or US Vital Records. 

B. Latest Philippine Passport (if available)

C. us certificate of citizenship (if available).

Original and two (2) photocopies

D. US Passport (if available)

E. child’s photos.

On appointment date, bring three (3) colored, identical 2″x 2″ photos, with plain white background. 

PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF DEPENDENT/S UNDER RA 9225

If the principal applicant already applied for dual citizenship and failed to include dependent children in the application, he/she may file a petition for inclusion of dependent children who are under 18 years of age and unmarried.

Requirements: 

• Duly accomplished Petition for Inclusion of Dependents Application Form  . To download the the form click here: newyorkpcg.org/pcgny/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Petition-for-Inclusion-of-Dependents-Under-RA-9225-1.pdf
• One (1) Original and two (2) photocopies of Petitioner’s Dual Citizenship papers (Oath of Allegiance, Identification Certificate, & Approval Order)
• Two (2) pieces of dependent child’s 2″ x 2″ photograph with white background taken not more than 3 months before the date of application.
• One (1) piece of principal’s 2″ x 2″ photograph with white background taken not more then 3 months before the date of application.
• Original and two (2) photocopies of dependent child’s birth certificate.
• Two (2) photocopies of dependent child’s valid foreign passport bio-page.
• Two (2) photocopies of petitioner’s valid passport bio-page and have the original passport ready for vetting.

The Consular Officer reserves the right to require additional documents from the informant or applicant when necessary.

Next steps after issuance of dual citizenship papers, 1. principal applicant and dependent child*.

*Dependent Child born to Filipino parent/s and became naturalized US citizen.

(Optional) Apply for Philippine passport.

As a dual citizen, it is not mandatory to apply for a Philippine passport.  You may use your US passport when travelling to the Philippines. You simply have to present your dual documents to the Philippine Immigration Officer as proof of Philippine citizenship, per the Bureau of Immigration’s  Operation Order No. SBM-2014-045 dated 30 September 2014  which is in force and still in effect.  Incoming Filipinos may present a valid PHL passport, Identification Certificate or a Certificate of Re-acquisition / Retention of PHL Citizenship to be admitted as Philippine citizens.  

Individuals who have just retained/reacquired their Philippine citizenship and who wish to apply for a Philippine passport will need to make a separate application and submit the requirements as specified in  “passport for dual or newly-registered PH citizens”.

Requirements for application for a new passport may be found here:    http://newyorkpcg.org/pcgny/consular-services/

To secure an appointment for passport application, visit www.passport.gov.ph.

2. For Dependent Child**

**Born in the US whose parents were already US citizens at the time of child’s birth.

Report the birth to the appropriate Philippine Embassy/Consulate which has jurisdiction over the place of birth.

Click here for information about requirements and procedure in reporting the birth. 

Apply for a Philippine Passport

The child is eligible to apply for a Philippine passport immediately after reporting the birth to the appropriate Philippine Embassy or Consulate.

Click  here  for information about requirements and procedure in applying for Philippine passport. 

DOWNLOADABLE FORMS

• Dual Citizenship Application Form (Rev.2020)
• Petition for Inclusion of Dependents Under RA 9225

Dual Citizenship Frequently Asked Questions(FAQs)

• The Philippines
• The President
• The Government
• The Department of Foreign Affairs
• The Secretary of Foreign Affairs
• The Consul General
• The Consulate
• History of the Consulate General
• Consulate Directory
• Non-Working Holidays
• Consulate Finder
• Announcements and Advisories
• Press and Photo Releases
• Cultural & Community Events
• Consular Outreach
• Online Appointment
• Assistance-to-Nationals
• Civil Registration
• Dual Citizenship (RA 9225)
• Notarial Services
• Overseas Voting
• Travel Document
• Passport Tracker
• Schedule of Fees
• Citizen’s Charter
• Adopt a Child from the Philippines
• Foreign Donations to the Philippines
• Foreign Medical Missions to the Philippines
• GSIS Pensioners Abroad
• Importation of Motor Vehicles to the Philippines
• Importation of Personal Effects to the Philippines
• Importation of Pets and Plants to the Philippines
• J1 Visa Waiver
• National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance
• Philippine Centenarians
• Philippine Driver’s License Renewal
• PRC Registration of New Professionals
• Renunciation of Philippine Citizenship
• Restrictions in Bringing Medicine & Other Regulated Products to the Philippines
• Shipment of Human Remains to the Philippines
• Social Security System (SSS)
• Travel Tax Exemption
• Videoconference Hearing
• Sentro Rizal
• Promoting Philippine Culture
• Doing Business & Investing in the Philippines
• Traveling to the Philippines
• Fil-Am Community Directory
• Fil-Am Community Directory Registration
• Filipino Businesses
• Filipino International Students
• Request Message of the Consul General
• Procurements

We’re sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again in a few moments. Exception: request blocked

15 Countries That Will Grant You Dual Citizenship by Ancestry

Posted: April 26, 2024 | Last updated: April 26, 2024

Dual citizenship offers individuals unique opportunities to connect with their heritage and access the privileges of multiple nations. Across the globe, several countries extend the possibility of acquiring citizenship through ancestry, fostering a sense of belonging and cultural enrichment. In this article, we explore 15 countries that embrace ancestry-based citizenship, illuminating the allure and the inherent challenges in this multifaceted process.

Do you have Italian ancestry? You might be eligible for Italian nationality. Italy allows persons with Italian roots to get citizenship by lineage, provided certain conditions are met, such as justifying lineage through birth records and maintaining a connection to Italian culture.

Luck of the Irish, indeed! Ireland gives a passport by descent to folks with Irish ancestry, typically extending up to two generations. Applicants must demonstrate a link to Ireland by producing their Irish ancestors’ birth or marriage credentials.

Are you of German heritage? You could be entitled to German citizenship. Germany allows individuals with German dynasties to reclaim allegiance lost due to historical events or claim nationality if their ancestors were German citizens. Requirements include providing documents verifying ancestry and knowledge of the German language

For those with Jewish ancestry, Israel extends a spiritual connection and a pathway to becoming the country’s national. Through its Law of Return, Israel welcomes Jewish descendants to make Aliyah (immigration) and become citizens of the Jewish state. Proof of Jewish ancestry, such as a letter from a recognized rabbi or relevant proof, is required.

Estonia, known for its digital innovation and pristine landscapes, invites descendants of Estonian emigrants to rediscover their familial ties. Through its citizenship by lineage program, the country facilitates the journey of anyone seeking to reclaim their Estonian heritage. Generally, eligibility hinges on demonstrating heredity from an Estonian ancestor, usually a parent or grandparent. To support their claim, one must provide authentication, including birth and marriage certificates and naturalization records.

Portugal’s citizenship by descent law allows folks with Portuguese roots to become citizens. Applicants must bring documentation, including birth and marriage credentials and naturalization records, to support their claim.

Through Sephardic heritage law, Spain extends citizenship to anyone with Sephardic Jewish ancestry. People interested in becoming Spanish citizens must provide evidence of their Sephardic values, such as genealogical records or an affidavit from a recognized Jewish community.

Hungary’s laws permit descendants of Hungarian citizens to claim citizenship. Requirements include providing evidence of ancestry through birth and marriage papers and authentication demonstrating that the ancestors were once the country’s nationals.

With its rich history and vibrant culture, Poland welcomes descendants of Polish immigrants to reconnect with their roots. Through its ancestry-based citizenship program, Poland provides a gateway for people to embrace their Polish traditions. Eligibility often depends on proving heredity from a Polish ancestor, usually a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent.

Do you have Lithuanian ancestry? You could be eligible for a Lithuanian passport. Lithuania allows anyone with Lithuanian kindred to claim citizenship by descent, provided they meet certain criteria and provide necessary verification, including birth documents, marriage certificates, and naturalization records.

Lebanon grants residency to anyone of Lebanese lineage, allowing them to reconnect with their roots and become citizens of this culturally rich nation. Requirements may vary, but they typically involve providing proof of ancestry and other necessary documentation.

Croatia’s law allows people with Croatian ancestry to claim the country’s passport. Interested parties must prove their Croatian roots through birth or marriage documents and may need to demonstrate knowledge of the Croatian language.

Serbia offers residency to persons of Serbian lineage, allowing them to reconnect with their cultural heritage. To be accepted, one has to prove one’s Serbian ancestry through birth or marriage papers and fulfill other requirements.

Latvia’s citizenship law permits folks with Latvian kindred to reclaim nationality. Conditions for residency include justifying ancestry through birth or marriage certificates and demonstrating a connection to Latvian culture.

Armenia’s law allows anyone of Armenian culture to become a country’s national, providing them a pathway to connect with their ancestral homeland. Necessary documents may include proving Armenian ancestry through birth or marriage papers and fulfilling other criteria.

The post 15 Nations That Grant Dual Citizenship by Ancestry appeared first on Housely .

More for You

NATO Aircraft Activated After Waves of Russian Strikes

I'm abrosexual - it took me 30 years to realise

I Was Told My Father Was A 'Deadbeat.' After He Died, I Found Out Everything I Knew About Him Was Wrong.

Caitlin Clark Tweaks Shoulder During Promotion at Bucks-Pacers Playoff Game

We Ordered 7 Fast-Food Breakfast Sandwiches to Find the Best One

Unsellable Houses' Lyndsay Lamb Says Buyers Are Moving Away From This Color Trend

The most expensive state to live in isn't California or New York, based on data. Here are the top 10.

Last letters of pioneering climber who died on Everest reveal dark side of mountaineering

'10-foot-tall people' discovered by archaeologists in Nevada cave

Famous Roles That 16 Actors Never Want to Play Again

Major Steakhouse Chain Closes 41 Locations

I’m a psychologist and mom—here are 3 phrases I wish more parents would say to their kids

I’m a Bank Teller: 3 Times You Should Never Ask For $100 Bills at the Bank

Map reveals best places to live in the US if nuclear war breaks out

Liz Cheney's Message to Supreme Court After Donald Trump Hearing

Hersh Goldberg-Polin's mother speaks out after Hamas releases hostage video of her son

30 food items that you might not know are banned in America

America Gets First Official One Piece Cafe

Remembering Fran

At 43, I’ve finally learned how to love my size 16 curves

Two Russian journalists jailed on ‘extremism’ charges for alleged work for Navalny group

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Two Russian journalists were arrested by their government on “extremism” charges and ordered by courts there on Saturday to remain in custody pending investigation and trial on accusations of working for a group founded by the late Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny .

Konstantin Gabov and Sergey Karelin both denied the charges for which they will be detained for a minimum of two months before any trials begin. Each faces a minimum of two years in prison and a maximum of six years for alleged “participation in an extremist organization,” according to Russian courts.

They are just the latest journalists arrested amid a Russian government crackdown on dissent and independent media that intensified after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago. The Russian government passed laws criminalizing what it deems false information about the military, or statements seen as discrediting the military, effectively outlawing any criticism of the war in Ukraine or speech that deviates from the official narrative.

A journalist for the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, Sergei Mingazov, was detained on charges of spreading false information about the Russian military, his lawyer said Friday.

Gabov and Karelin are accused of preparing materials for a YouTube channel run by Navalny’s Foundation for Fighting Corruption, which has been outlawed by Russian authorities. Navalny died in an Arctic penal colony in February.

Gabov, who was detained in Moscow, is a freelance producer who has worked for multiple organizations, including Reuters, the court press service said. Reuters did not immediately comment on the ruling by the court.

Karelin, who has dual citizenship with Israel, was detained Friday night in Russia’s northern Murmansk region.

Karelin, 41, has worked for a number of outlets, including for The Associated Press. He was a cameraman for German media outlet Deutsche Welle until the Kremlin banned the outlet from operating in Russia in February 2022.

“The Associated Press is very concerned by the detention of Russian video journalist Sergey Karelin,” the AP said in a statement. “We are seeking additional information.”

Russia’s crackdown on dissent is aimed at opposition figures, journalists, activists, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and ordinary Russians critical of the Kremlin. A number of journalists have been jailed in relation to their coverage of Navalny, including Antonina Favorskaya , who remains in pre-trial detention at least until May 28 following a hearing last month.

Favorskaya was detained and accused by Russian authorities of taking part in an “extremist organization” by posting on the social media platforms of Navalny’s Foundation. She covered Navalny’s court hearings for years and filmed the last video of Navalny before he died in the penal colony.

Kira Yarmysh, Navalny’s spokeswoman, said that Favorskaya did not publish anything on the Foundation’s platforms and suggested that Russian authorities have targeted her because she was doing her job as a journalist.

Evan Gershkovich , a 32-year-old American reporter for The Wall Street Journal, is awaiting trial on espionage charges at Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo Prison. Both Gershkovich and his employer have vehemently denied the charges.

Gershkovich was detained in March 2023 while on a reporting trip and has spent over a year in jail; authorities have not detailed what, if any, evidence they have to support the espionage charges.

The U.S. government has declared Gershkovich wrongfully detained, with officials accusing Moscow of using the journalist as a pawn for political ends.

The Russian government has also cracked down on opposition figures. One prominent activist, Vladimir Kara-Murza was sentenced to 25 years.

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

Mexican journalist is slain south of Mexico City, spurring outrage among colleagues

Mexican journalists are protesting a day after one of their colleagues was killed in the southern state of Morelos

Crews plan to extinguish fire Saturday night from train derailment near Arizona-New Mexico line

Crews plan to extinguish a fire on Saturday night from a freight train derailment near the Arizona-New Mexico state line that forced the closure of a stretch of Interstate 40

April 27, 2024

Body of climber recovered after 1,000-foot fatal fall on Alaska peak

Authorities say a helicopter crew has recovered the body of a climber who died after falling about 1,000 feet while on a steep, technical route in Alaska’s Denali National Park and Preserve

David Pryor, former governor and senator of Arkansas, is remembered

Former Arkansas Gov. and U.S. Sen. David Pryor is being remembered

Assailants ambush and kill 3 police officers in southern Chile, shaking the country

Authorities say armed assailants have ambushed and killed three law enforcement officers in southern Chile before setting their car on fire

Massachusetts police bust burglary ring that stole $4 million in jewels over six years

The Massachusetts State Police announced they had busted a burglary ring that stole around $4 million in jewels mostly from the homes of South Asian lived in more than two dozen communities over the past six years