"Sir" Allen Stanford

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

I think the naturalized citizens have to give up the previous citizenship.
But lots of Americans still hold dual citizenship via birth. Former
neighbors daughter was born while he was working for Bectal in Rhodesia.
She still has Rhodesian or what ever it is call now, citizenship.

Yes, naturalized citizens are required to renounce their previous
citizenship, but, that's only in the eyes of the American government which
has no jurisdiction in the immigrant's native country. While the U.S. no
longer recognizes their native-born citizenship, their original country may
very well still either honor their original citizenship and dual
citizenship. Most countries are only concerned that people are citizens of
the current country of residence and don't care if those people have
citizenship elsewhere. The United States doesn't fall into that category.

Rhodesia no longer exists. In those days there was Southern Rhodesia and
Northern Rhodesia, neither of which were independent. Southern Rhodesia is
no longer a Portuguese colony and is now Zimbabwe. So there was no such
thing as Rhodesian citizenship. Either she was a citizen of Portugal
(unlikely) or a citizen of Zimbabwe. If she was born in Northern Rhodesia
she was a citizen of Great Britain (unlikely) or when the area became
independent, Zambia. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 200 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

I think the naturalized citizens have to give up the previous
citizenship. But lots of Americans still hold dual citizenship via birth.
Former neighbors daughter was born while he was working for Bectal in
Rhodesia. She still has Rhodesian or what ever it is call now,
citizenship.

Yes, naturalized citizens are required to renounce their previous
citizenship, but, that's only in the eyes of the American government which
has no jurisdiction in the immigrant's native country. While the U.S. no
longer recognizes their native-born citizenship, their original country
may very well still either honor their original citizenship and dual
citizenship. Most countries are only concerned that people are citizens
of the current country of residence and don't care if those people have
citizenship elsewhere. The United States doesn't fall into that category.

Rhodesia no longer exists. In those days there was Southern Rhodesia and
Northern Rhodesia, neither of which were independent. Southern Rhodesia
is no longer a Portuguese colony and is now Zimbabwe. So there was no
such

Both Northern Rhodesia AND Southern Rhodesia used to be British colonies.
Portugal's sphere of colonization in Africa included
Mozambique, Angola, the enclave of Cabinda and Portuguese Guinea.


thing as Rhodesian citizenship. Either she was a citizen of Portugal
(unlikely) or a citizen of Zimbabwe. If she was born in Northern Rhodesia
she was a citizen of Great Britain (unlikely) or when the area became
independent, Zambia. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 200 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

On Feb 21, 8:28*am, "James Silverton"
wrote:
*Mike *wrote *on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:35:46 +0000:

Calif Bill wrote:
*I think the naturalized citizens have to give up the previous
citizenship. But lots of Americans still hold dual
citizenship via birth. *Former neighbors daughter was born
while he was working for Bectal in Rhodesia. She still has
Rhodesian or what ever it is call now, citizenship.

How does a naturalized citizen like me give up his previous citizenship
and still possess dual citizenship, which I do? It seems a contradiction
in terms since the oath I took on becoming a citizen said " I hereby
declare, on oath, that 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"

Very often, the naturalized citizen's original country does not view
the renunciatory statement in the US oath as having any effect under
the original country's laws. When that happens, the person ends up
being both a new US citizen and he also keeps his original
citizenship. The US has no renunciatory requirement, other than the
statement of renunciation in the naturalization oath. The US can't
force the other country to "let go" and as of now, US law requires
nothing else be done.

wrote on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:13:35 -0800 (PST):

On Feb 21, 8:28 am, "James Silverton"
wrote:
Mike wrote on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:35:46 +0000:

Calif Bill wrote:
I think the naturalized citizens have to give up the
previous citizenship. But lots of Americans still hold
dual citizenship via birth. Former neighbors daughter was
born while he was working for Bectal in Rhodesia. She
still has Rhodesian or what ever it is call now,
citizenship.

How does a naturalized citizen like me give up his previous
citizenship and still possess dual citizenship, which I do?
It seems a contradiction in terms since the oath I took on
becoming a citizen said " I hereby declare, on oath, that 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 US can't
force the other country to "let go" and as of now, US law requires
nothing else be done.

So despite oaths, one can *effectively* be a dual citizen as I and
others have maintained. At one time, voting in an election or serving in
the armed forces of another country was considered as invalidating US
citizenship but such does not seem to be the case now.
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"Zane" schrieb

it seems apparent that quite a few
Europeans get US citizenship just for tax purposes

You must be very careful which citizenships you have: You
wouldn't want to end up paying taxes to two countries, do
you?

If you are born in the US, you are American, if your parents
are German you are German...: dual citizenship, just because
your parents chose to be on vacation at the time of your
birth. Not for tax reasons.
I don't understand what all the fuzz is about: It's simply a
bureaucratic neccessitiy to have one. Having more than one
makes some things easier, some things more complicated.

Jochen from Germany

"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Sharx35 wrote:

So, to which country to you owe loyalty? No man can serve two masters.

You don't "serve" a country surely? The state answers to you, not vice
versa.

Oh, how I wish that statement were still true. Many of my dealing with
civil servants, particularly union members, has lead me to believe that a
lot of those employees and bureaucrats really believe that government exists
to serve government. Most government officials could care less about what
the electorate thinks and their handlers cook up a batch of whoppers so the
politicians can say the right things to the public and vote the opposite.
KM

Diplomats lie to journalists and believe these lies when they see them in
print."
~ Karl Kraus
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 200 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Sharx35" wrote in message
news:7Xqol.14350$PH1.2830@edtnps82...
"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

Rhodesia no longer exists. In those days there was Southern Rhodesia and
Northern Rhodesia, neither of which were independent. Southern Rhodesia
is no longer a Portuguese colony and is now Zimbabwe. So there was no
such

Both Northern Rhodesia AND Southern Rhodesia used to be British colonies.
Portugal's sphere of colonization in Africa included
Mozambique, Angola, the enclave of Cabinda and Portuguese Guinea.


LOL! Yes, before I opened your post, I had just now re-read my own post
(which I don't remember writing and when I got to the end was surprised to
see my signature.) But, as I was reading it, I frowned and said aloud,
"Weren't BOTH Rhodesia's British?" (Especially because of the name,
Rhodes). So, I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote those words,
that is, if you'd call that "thinking". My bad. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 200 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Jochen Kriegerowski" wrote in message
...
"Zane" schrieb
it seems apparent that quite a few
Europeans get US citizenship just for tax purposes

You must be very careful which citizenships you have: You
wouldn't want to end up paying taxes to two countries, do
you?


There are other reasons to be careful of what citizenship a person acquires.
I once knew a fellow, whom at the behest of a prince, applied to obtain
citizenship in Saudi Arabia where he worked. He decided to move to the
United States, but, for a period of time, the Saudi government refused to
allow him to leave (he had been a citizen of France), saying his services
were needed there. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 200 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Sharx35" wrote in message
news:7Xqol.14350$PH1.2830@edtnps82...
"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

Rhodesia no longer exists. In those days there was Southern Rhodesia
and Northern Rhodesia, neither of which were independent. Southern
Rhodesia is no longer a Portuguese colony and is now Zimbabwe. So there
was no such

Both Northern Rhodesia AND Southern Rhodesia used to be British colonies.
Portugal's sphere of colonization in Africa included
Mozambique, Angola, the enclave of Cabinda and Portuguese Guinea.


LOL! Yes, before I opened your post, I had just now re-read my own post
(which I don't remember writing and when I got to the end was surprised to
see my signature.) But, as I was reading it, I frowned and said aloud,
"Weren't BOTH Rhodesia's British?" (Especially because of the name,
Rhodes). So, I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote those words,
that is, if you'd call that "thinking". My bad. KM

Hell, it's a minor oversight. Geography was my "minor", though.


--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 200 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

On Feb 23, 3:37*pm, "James Silverton"
wrote:
*wrote *on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:13:35 -0800 (PST):



On Feb 21, 8:28 am, "James Silverton"
wrote:
*Mike *wrote *on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:35:46 +0000:

Calif Bill wrote:
*I think the naturalized citizens have to give up the
previous citizenship. But lots of Americans still hold
dual citizenship via birth. *Former neighbors daughter was
born while he was working for Bectal in Rhodesia. She
still has Rhodesian or what ever it is call now,
citizenship.

How does a naturalized citizen like me give up his previous
citizenship and still possess dual citizenship, which I do?
It seems a contradiction in terms since the oath I took on
becoming a citizen said " I hereby declare, on oath, that 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 US can't
force the other country to "let go" and as of now, US law requires
nothing else be done.

So despite oaths, one can *effectively* be a dual citizen as I and
others have maintained.

Yes. The State Department acknowledges that some naturalized citizens
do end up keeping their original citizenships because their original
countries' nationality laws continue to view the person as still being
a citizen the original country. They are, of course, expected to also
obey whatever laws apply to US citizens, such as entering the US on a
US passport. This sometimes means that the person must travel with
both a US passport and his original country's passport.


At one time, voting in an election or serving in
the armed forces of another country was considered as invalidating US
citizenship but such does not seem to be the case now.

Voting in a foreign election has been removed from one of the
potential causes of loss of US citizenship. Serving in a foreign
military CAN cause loss of US citizenship IF done with the intention
of relinquishing US citizenship.