Countries Wihout Extradition/ Dual Citizenship

[s/v Beth]

The key to flying under the radar is to be close to the ground. I have lived in caves and under rocks, living in an old boat on a forgotten coastline and quiet harbor is rich for me. Thoreau had a good idea, he just forgot to bring his wife along.

[svmariane]

Originally Posted by campuscab

The problem is most of these guys were single and had over a million in the bank.

Yeah, well, they're over thirty, right?

Because, you know, being single with a million after-tax bucks and also
being under thirty would be a terrible problem, no?

[campuscab]

The younger guys had no ties and could live fine on interest. The older ones are getting too old for security work and families get expensive. Most of the guys blew there money on stupid stuff thinking it would last forever. I am older so my price range was half of the others and I have four kids that love food. No retirement for me anytime soon. Costa Rica sure looked nice maybe someday all I need is wind right?

Sent from my Huawei Y301A1 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[David_Old_Jersey]

Of course if uncle sam is after ya then having / not having an extradition treaty is nowadays academic.

[Capt Phil]

As a Canadian citizen, I was loath to give it up until Canada changed their immigration laws in the early 2000's (forget the date) and now allow Canadians to hold US citizenship. Same is now true for Australians. The issue and reason it took so long is that the country of origin must change their laws (and there is very little pressure to do so... it only would come from ex-pats) to allow dual citizenship. I was told at my swearing in ceremony to, 'just remeber, you are now first and foremost an American'. Australia changed their law around 2004 to allow dual citizenship so many who had lived in the US now applied for US citizenship while retaining their home country afiliation. Phil

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

My Son was born in Germany, Gelnhausen, and cannot be a German citizen as I was a US soldier.

Many countries won't automatically give citizenship to persons born on their soil.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

I was told at my swearing in ceremony to, 'just remeber, you are now first and foremost an American'.

I'm confused. Were you a citizen of the U.S. who became a citizen of Canada also? Or a citizen of Canada who became a citizen of the U.S.?

If the latter, then you would have been required to swear the Oath of Allegiance, which includes, in part...

"I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"

That seems to make it pretty clear that you are renouncing your previous citizenship. After swearing this oath you are not "first and foremost" an American. At least as far as the U.S. government is concerned you are only and exclusively an American.

[goboatingnow]

"I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"

The mere fact of "saying" it binds you to a moral code, it does not however cause you to officially terminate being a citizen of another country, which the US explicitly recognises as having a dual citizenship agreement.

Standing in the street of a country , shouting I renounce my citizenship, generally doesn't work.!!!!!

in most cases, some form of application is needed to renounce citizenship, and in many cases , you can re-apply to regain citizenship, once the underlying reasons for being a citizen still apply.

Notwithstanding, nothing for example US law can do can in itself can cause your citizenship of another country to be lost.


dave

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by s/v Beth

The key to flying under the radar is to be close to the ground.

I bet the real key to flying under the radar is to just not be worth the trouble to be shot down.

I've long wondered why people who spend so much time complaining about their country don't take advantage of their right to just leave.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The mere fact of "saying" it binds you to a moral code, it does not however cause you to officially terminate being a citizen of another country, which the US explicitly recognises as having a dual citizenship agreement.

Standing in the street of a country , shouting I renounce my citizenship, generally doesn't work.!!!!!


dave

Taking an officialy witnessed oath that is a requirement for citizenship, actually does have legal standing. So, it's a legal, not a "moral" issue.

It's another one of those issues where the odds of having problems related to it are very low, so people break the rule and get away with it. In the current political climate, it's a non-issue.

In theory, by not following thru, you haven't completed the requirements for becoming a citizen. There is a lot of political conflict over immigration currently and if the pendulum swings the other way, it could be messy.

[RainDog]

I hear Crimea is nice, and I am sure they do not extradite.

[MBLittle]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Taking an officialy witnessed oath that is a requirement for citizenship, actually does have legal standing.

Not sure about other countries but the US Federal Court system has specifically ruled that "the simple act of declaring in a foreign land to renounce US Citizenship is not enough to revoke citizenship."

For US citizens you MUST specifically write the US consulate or embassy in the country you became an additional citizen in to "formally and in writing renounce US Citizenship"

There are few exceptions. Lybiya, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea et all.

Sent from my LG-E980 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[MBLittle]

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other", (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952)

Current U.S. State Department rules presume that an individual does not intend to give up citizenship when performing one of the above potentially expatriating acts. If asked, the individual can always answer that they did not intend to give it up; this is sufficient to retain their citizenship.Hence, the U.S. effectively allows citizens to acquire new citizenships while remaining a U.S. citizen, becoming a dual citizen.

Sent from my LG-E980 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by MBLittle

Hence, the U.S. effectively allows citizens to acquire new citizenships while remaining a U.S. citizen, becoming a dual citizen.

Yes, that's absolutely true. No question about that. The question is about going the other direction. When you are a citizen of another country, and want to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S., it is a different situation. You are required to fill out all manner of forms and swear a legally-binding oath to renounce all other citizenships. Most other countries do not require you to renounce other citizenships in order to become a citizen of their country. Which is why you can become, for example, a citizen of France without renouncing your U.S. citizenship. But the U.S., and a few others, do require that sort of renunciation.

Now, the other countries may or may not recognize the oath that you take in a U.S. courtroom to be a legal renunciation of your citizenship in their country. I don't know. What I do know is that the United States, at that point in time, will consider you to be ONLY a citizen of the United States, to the complete exclusion of any other citizenships.

Whether or not that makes any difference in a practical sense, I don't know. I can envision situations where it might, but they would be pretty obscure.

[MBLittle]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Yes, that's absolutely true. No question about that. The question is about going the other direction. When you are a citizen of another country, and want to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S., it is a different situation. You are required to fill out all manner of forms and swear a legally-binding oath to renounce all other citizenships. Most other countries do not require you to renounce other citizenships in order to become a citizen of their country. Which is why you can become, for example, a citizen of France without renouncing your U.S. citizenship. But the U.S., and a few others, do require that sort of renunciation.

Now, the other countries may or may not recognize the oath that you take in a U.S. courtroom to be a legal renunciation of your citizenship in their country. I don't know. What I do know is that the United States, at that point in time, will consider you to be ONLY a citizen of the United States, to the complete exclusion of any other citizenships.

Whether or not that makes any difference in a practical sense, I don't know. I can envision situations where it might, but they would be pretty obscure.

I believe that is wrong.

Kawakita V US was about a Japanese man wishing to gain US citizenship and still retain Japanese citizenship. That ruling in effect goes both ways. US > foreign and foreign > US.

The State Department in their regulations make no distinction which means they treat it as such both.

"A person can have obligations as a citizen in more than one country"

Sent from my LG-E980 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app