My wife is from Hong Kong and we've both got US citizenship. To get HK residency as well as US citizenship, our kids would have to be born in HK. We don't actively live in HK, and your anecdotes are making me wonder how feasible this would actually be within the time frame of maternity leave.
I was saying that US requires people who naturalize into US citizenship to take an oath to renounce their original citizenship. This is just a fact and the Supreme Court did not say this is unconstitutional.
Plenty of people have been naturalized into Chinese citizenship, at least in Hongkong. Here is the requirement http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/immigration/chinese/naturalis... and I do see that it requires abandonment of foreign citizenship although it does not say what level of documentation is needed, if any. If it were an oath then it would be symmetric with US. With China ruled by the CCP it is also understandable that the demand for naturalization may not be that high in the first place.
Maybe they should get Chinese citizenship. I hear they're economy is growing and if you have the money you can get away with anything over there.
In all seriousness, if you don't at least support the American gov't with your wallet or with your life (military service), you aren't really American. Why should you always have the option to go back to the US?
Residency in New Zealand or Hong Kong, or possibly Switzerland. Getting residency is a step with zero negatives; gaining an additional citizenship has some, while renouncing one's US citizenship has exceptionally bad consequences.
This is misleading. I can't remember if Puerto Rico still issues passports but I do know all US citizens resident in Puerto Rico are/were entitled to them, there is no separate citizenship. One can definitely be a HKSAR passport holder without being entitled to Chinese citizenship. All the people with Right of Abode in Hong Kong who it can be proven don't have Mainland (or Taiwan) ancestry who want a Chinese passport need to be naturalised as Chinese. This is really, really hard. Last I heard about 700 people with Right of Abode had done it. China (including Taiwan), Japan and Korea don't really naturalise foreigners.
On a side note Cantonese people are as Han as Northwsterners. It's a strong regional identity and it could have supported a nationalism, like Ukrainian did in the Russian/Soviet context but the time is gone.
As an American citizen that left for Europe 10 years ago, I honestly don't see why an American citizenship is so desirable. Yes you can make a lot of money, but you don't need a citizenship for that. I tell people that ask me about moving over they should "get in and get out". Make your money then move to somewhere with a functional society to raise a family. You might take a pay cut but your kids won't get shot at school either.
I said this before, but I will say it again - as a child, I dreamed of emigrating to the US and getting a US citizenship. Nowadays, I would reject one if anybody offered, and if I had one I would denounce it. Like the article states - being American abroad is now seen as liability, and I am not surprised Americans living abroad give up their citizenship just to stop dealing with this nonsense.
I always thought this kind of made sense. I mean, you still enjoy the benefits of being a US citizen. You are also more likely to use the embassies and consulates.
Serious question, what benefits do you think US citizenship and US embassies provide over and beyond what pretty much every other western country provides to their citizens?
There are plenty of accidental Americans who don’t even realize they are citizens. Also, if you have concurrent Chinese citizenship, you are supposed to renounce one or the other when you turn 18. Pricey, since renouncing citizenship doesn’t come cheap, but at least you’ll avoid the wealth tax if you don’t have any yet. This will be an issue in 10 or so years considering the anchor baby trend in the last decade or so.
Because citizens are stakeholders in their government. Everyone else is not. Naturalized citizens earn their citizenship through a well defined process [1].
> The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of government.
> Support and defend the Constitution. Stay informed of the issues affecting your community. Participate in the democratic process. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. Participate in your local community. Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities. Serve on a jury when called upon. Defend the country if the need should arise.
Why would you want to? There can't be that many countries in which one would want citizenship. Especially given that some of them (or is it just the US?) have horrible tax consequences even for expats.
It's interesting because the US also has unconditional jus soli citizenship (if you are born on American soil, no matter what your circumstances, you are granted citizenship). Nearly all major countries in the Americas have jus soli citizenship, but very few countries outside the Americas do.
American citizenship is most often granted on a person's first day in the world. It's ludicrous to say that one newborn baby is more deserving of anything than another newborn baby.
One more piece of Anecdata, Im an Australian who has decided to go for US citizenship, for several reasons but all basically due to a continuous disregard for personal liberties by our government. Australians love being told what to do, seems like 90% of the population are very satisfied to be servants of the ruling class and aspire to nothing else.
Edit: I replied to the wrong comment, meant to reply to the one above this one.
reply