Can American Citizens (e.g., Rosie O'Donnell) Lose Their Citizenship?

Yes, but only if they intend to relinquish it (or, if they are naturalized citizens and committed fraud during the naturalization process).

[Originally posted in July, reposted today, with slight changes, in light of President Trump's renewed talk of stripping Rosie O'Donnell of her citizenship: "As previously mentioned, we are giving serious thought to taking away Rosie O'Donnell's Citizenship. She is not a Great American and is, in my opinion, incapable of being so!"]

Let's begin with the constitutional text, here from section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Once you have American citizenship, you have a constitutional entitlement to it. If you like your American citizenship, you can keep your American citizenship—and that's with the Supreme Court's guarantee, see Afroyim v. Rusk (1967):

There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.

(Special bonus in Afroyim: a cameo appearance by a Representative Van Trump in 1868, who said, among other things, "To enforce expatriation or exile against a citizen without his consent is not a power anywhere belonging to this Government. No conservative-minded statesman, no intelligent legislator, no sound lawyer has ever maintained any such power in any branch of the Government.") In Vance v. Terrazas (1980), all the justices agreed with this principle. Your U.S. citizenship doesn't turn on whether the President is of the opinion that you are a Great American.

Now, as with almost all things in law—and in life—there are some twists. Naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship if they procured their citizenship by lying on their citizenship applications; the premise there is that legal rights have traditionally been voided by fraud in procuring those rights. And citizens can voluntarily surrender their citizenship, just as people can generally waive many of their legal rights. This surrender can sometimes be inferred from conduct (such as voluntary service in an enemy nation's army), if the government can show that the conduct was engaged in with the intent to surrender citizenship. The relevant federal statute, 8 U.S. Code § 1481, provides (emphasis added):

A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state [as an adult];

(2) … making … [a] formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state [as an adult];

(3) … serving in … the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4) (A) … serving in … any … employment under the government of a foreign state [as an adult] if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) … serving in … any … employment under the government of a foreign state [as an adult] … for which … employment … [a] declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic … officer of the United States in a foreign state …;

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality … whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) [being convicted of] committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18 [rebellion or insurrection], or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18 [advocating overthrow of government], or violating section 2384 of title 18 [seditious conspiracy] by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow … by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them ….

But as both the statute and Afroyim make clear, the conduct listed in (1) through (7) will only surrender the person's citizenship if the person engaged in it "with the intention of relinquishing" citizenship. Subsection (b) of this statute provides that "Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily." That presumption is relevant when a person claims that one of the expatriating acts was done under duress, e.g., that he was forced to serve in an enemy army. But

It is important … to note the scope of the statutory presumption. [The subsection] provides that any of the statutory expatriating acts, if proved, are presumed to have been committed voluntarily. It does not also direct a presumption that the act has been performed with the intent to relinquish United States citizenship. That matter remains the burden of the party claiming expatriation to prove by a preponderance of the evidence….

I have no reason to think that O'Donnell has engaged in any of these acts, such as (in her case) "going through the process of obtaining her Irish citizenship through her grandparents," "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." American law allows dual citizenship, and "does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to their U.S. citizenship."

Comments

[NvEric]

Government is arbitrary and in place at birth with no recourse to consent for it. Thus, citizenship must be an absolute until revoked by the citizen only. For those naturalized, it's a different matter ... or is it ?

[Michael P]

The Fourteenth Amendment specifically says "born or naturalized". The Supreme Court has recognized an implicit exception for fraud that is relevant to the naturalization, but I think that's the only pertinent difference.

[Lee Moore]

I’m waiting for the test case on the “untimely ripped” exception.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.”

The is no way to read the amendment to all a citizen to voluntarily relinquish citizenship. The only way to get to voluntary relinquishment is by inferring extra-textual limitations on birthright citizenship.

[A Japanese Student]

Voluntary relinquishment is part of the well-recognized right to leave a country (provided they have another place to go). Because international law allows governments to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over its nationals, voluntary relinquishment allows the person to fully exit the country - not just physically.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Relinquishment of citizenship wasn’t allowed under English common law, although it was considered a right in the US at the time.

And even now you have to pay a fee, and you might continue to be subject to US taxes, so you might not be able to fully exit the country.

But that’s exactly what I mean by extra textual limitations.

[M L]

I'm not sure the amendment itself says anything one way or the other about relinquishing citizenship.

Although, by implication, the amendment recognizes a broad right to renounce allegiances, since "jurisdiction" as a matter of original meaning required exclusive allegiance, yet millions of Americans had immigrated and settled in the US and were considered citizens, and so these millions were deemed to have renounced prior allegiances regardless of what any foreign country thought of the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1868

"The Expatriation Act of 1868 was an act of the 40th United States Congress that declared, as part of the United States nationality law, that the right of expatriation (i.e. a right to renounce one's citizenship) is "a natural and inherent right of all people" and "that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government""

[Nelson]

“ since "jurisdiction" as a matter of original meaning required exclusive allegiance”

That is not what jurisdiction means. At all. The wingnuts and xenophobes hate it, but “jurisdiction” applies to anyone and everyone, citizen or not, who are inside the United States and subject to its laws.

[M L]

Are you a lawyer? Can you tell me what the primary source is for the original meaning of the citizenship clause? Give me the page numbers.

[M L]

"The only way to get to voluntary relinquishment is by inferring extra-textual limitations on birthright citizenship."

Can you explain this?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, it’s inconsistent with the text. If you relinquish birthright citizenship, you were born in the US and subject (at birth) to the jurisdiction thereof.

So it appears that the text isn’t an exhaustive description of who is entitled to birthright citizenship.

[ducksalad]

Or the text *is* exhaustive and the relinquishment law is unconstitutional, as applied to people born here.

Whenever they try to use an exception to question the whole right, the best solution is to eliminate the exception. I'd vote to legalize shouting fire in a theater, just to shut down that noxious line of argument.

If involuntary US citizenship is logically needed to protect birthright citizenship, then so be it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not. Courts certainly can (and should) rule in favor of birthright citizenship in cases where people haven't renounced their citizenship, but I don't think the case in certain circumstances is as airtight as some people claim.

[Nelson]

“ So it appears that the text isn’t an exhaustive description of who is entitled to birthright citizenship.”

In your scenario, the person is entitled to (and has received) birthright citizenship. The fact that they might later choose to relinquish that citizenship doesn’t mean that they didn’t have it at birth.

[Lee Moore]

I think your answer proves way too much. You are implying that 14A only declares you to be a citizen by birth…at the time of your birth, and makes no commitment about later times.

I don’t think that’s a place you want to go, because if you allow voluntary relinquishment as an atextual exception on the grounds that 14A is not committing itself any further than your date of birth, what other atextual exceptions might be found ?

[M L]

Tangentially, I understand the US only started expressly recognizing "dual citizenship" in 1990. I question that concept. It seems to be at odds, philosophically and legally, with US concepts from the founding to the 20th century. What is gained from this?

[ducksalad]

What is gained from this?

Among other things, bad actors may try to get their political opponents disqualified, or personal enemies deported, by claiming they are not US citizens. These bad actors realize that dual citizenship is often acquired inadvertently (decision by parents, automatic grants by parentage or birthplace) and that some countries do not recognize renunciation. They would exploit these facts to claim their opponents are loyal to some other country. Even if their targets don't actually hold foreign citizenship, the bad actors can still make the process the punishment, and rabble rouse off the accusation.

This law aids loyal US citizens by delegitimizing these attacks and making them non-starters in court, although of course no deterrence is perfect and some bad actors will still try.

I hope this does not disappoint you or make you feel criticized.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When you mention, "bad actors," which among them do you suppose M L would like to see empowered?

[ducksalad]

Hey, I said I hoped he wouldn't feel criticized. So I won't speculate on which bad actors he might or might not like.

In fact, in the continued spirit of charity, let me mention some bad actors M L probably *doesn't* want to see empowered: the people going after Ted Cruz (R) for his (accidental and now renounced) Canadian citizenship or Michele Bachman (R) for her (deliberately acquired as an adult) Swiss citizenship.

I'm fairly sure he thinks going after them would be bad. But he can speak for himself.

[M L]

It is a simple bright line rule to say, "you can be a citizen of the US, or you can be a citizen of some other country, but not both." Which is apparently how it was for the vast majority of this nation's history.

And since the US recognizes a fundamental, inalienable, natural right to renounce any citizenship or allegiance (see my comment above), what some other country does or does not recognize simply doesn't matter at all - contrary to what you stated.

So, I'm still not seeing how the relatively recent innovation of dual citizenship provides any benefit. Any politician running for office in the US can easily renounce other allegiances, so there shouldn't be any issue with "bad actors" "exploiting" this.

On the other hand, if a politician running for office in the United States is unwilling to renounce other allegiances under these circumstances, that seems like a valid cause for concern.

And that brings us to the other column which would be the downsides of this "dual citizenship" innovation.

[ducksalad]

And since the US recognizes a fundamental, inalienable, natural right to renounce any citizenship or allegiance (see my comment above), what some other country does or does not recognize simply doesn't matter at all -

Excellent! This admission completely kills the allegiance argument against children of illegal aliens. The parents simply renounce their former citizenship shortly before the birth - and you just conceded they have an "fundamental, inalienable, natural right" to do so - and that zeroes out any argument about "full and complete" jurisdiction. They have no other allegiance and are not subject to any other jurisdiction.

I mean, that argument was already stupid, but now you've completely demolished it.

I haven't seen your downsides on dual citizenship, so we'll accept your newfound support for birthright citizenship, and allow the dual citizenship anyway. Except for the newborn child of illegal aliens, who will be only a US citizen until the passport is nailed down and no longer questionable.

Own goal of the day.

[M L]

Do you admit, then, that your prior comment is wrong, and that dual citizenship is not required to prevent bad actors from casting unwarranted aspersions on aspiring US politicians due to inadvertent foreign allegiances, given that any foreign allegiances can easily be renounced?

If you would kindly answer that first, I'm more than happy to change the topic to birthright citizenship!

[ducksalad]

Of course not, to start with I never said anything was required. You asked what is gained by the policy, and I told you one thing that was gained. And although there are many other benefits to allowing dual citizenship, the one I offered is sufficient all by itself.

It's bad policy to appease bad actors, in this case by requiring decent people to renounce second citizenships. It's good policy to take ammunition away from those bad actors. Having dual citizenship acknowledged on the US Department of State webpage makes their attacks incrementally weaker and that's more than enough reason to do it, considering that you haven't listed any valid downsides yet.

[M L]

Let me rephrase. If foreign allegiance is easily renounced, then isn't it true that inadvertently acquired foreign allegiances shouldn't present a problem in terms of people's citizenship being falsely question for political reasons?

[ducksalad]

You know what - you have a very minor point.

So OK, a second citizenship that is *both* inadvertent and unwanted is only a minor hassle to get rid of. Although IMO, since you've stated zero benefits on your side, even that tiny hassle is not worth requiring by law.

Having said that, if somehow I discovered my parents had gotten me a Zambian passport, why would I want give it up? There's an 1% chance I might want to go there, and I'd save the visa hassle and fee. There's a 1% chance I might want to run for office without you jumping up and down saying "ooh ooh he broke the law".

Doing the math that's an 0.01% chance I might want to do both. Since you've listed zero (0) downsides, that 0.01% outweighs them in favor of dual citizenship.

[M L]

Great!

Yes, I can see that dual citizenship provides benefits to the individual. Maybe just some minor hassle and fees? I'm not sure what benefits it provides to the country though. Meanwhile, dual allegiances can create a conflict of interest. I haven't thought about the practical side much. But as I mentioned, I'm noticing that it is at odds, philosophically and legally, with US thinking that pertained prior to the 20th century.

Now to your comment about birthright citizenship, no, the natural right to expatriate and renounce allegiances does not support the maximalist view of birthright citizenship, or undermine my view of birthright citizenship. Just the opposite. With your illegal alien example, you're missing the other side of the coin, which is that the US has the right to choose whether or not to allow immigration and whether or not to bring new persons within its political allegiance and jurisdiction. The consent of the governed works both ways, the governed consent to jurisdiction and allegiance, and they can also consent, or not, to admitting new persons into the polity. You can go out in the middle of the Pacific and declare yourself free of all allegiances, but there is no concept in the law of any country of having no allegiance to anyone, it is assumed you belong to some country, so nobody has to recognize this unless and until you are changing your allegiance or citizenship to a new country, and that country can require its consent to do so.

[not guilty]

"Tangentially, I understand the US only started expressly recognizing 'dual citizenship' in 1990."

You are quite wrong, M L. Dual citizenship has long been recognized in the U.S. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723 (1952).

[Mr. Bumble]

Something dated from 1952 hardly seems "long been recognized".

[M L]

My understanding is there were gradual shifts in this direction, mostly in the latter half of the 20th century. In 1990 the government started recognizing it a bit more explicitly. See fn 26 here.

Even today, the US "does not formally recognize dual citizenship" and "does not endorse dual nationality as a matter of policy because of the problems which it may cause" - even though it is permitted. Quite simply, current legislation "does not contain any provisions requiring U.S. Citizens who are born with dual nationality or who acquire a second nationality at an early age to choose one nationality or the other when they become adults" while at the same time it does "not specifically refer to dual nationality" i.e. it does not expressly permit it. https://jp.usembassy.gov/services/dual-nationality/

Regardless. The question is, should US law require that US citizenship is exclusive?

[ducksalad]

Why don't you tell us the downsides you alluded to.

I'll give you the upsides:
- It allows people with family in friendly democratic countries to not have to go through a bunch of visa hassles.
- It allows people with family or property in nasty authoritarian countries to not invite retaliation against those families, or loss of their property, which can happen if they make a big deal about renouncing.
- And might as well be blunt here: it offends the right people.

[Roger S]

In other words, it helps people evade the law.

[ducksalad]

There is no such law is the US. If that's your claim, it's BS.
If you're talking about other countries, helping people evade oppressive foreign laws is no big deal for me.

[ducksalad]

Since you're stumbling, I'm going to do you a favor and steelman your case. There is one limited sense in which one might make a case for limiting dual citizenship.

Consider adjoining congressional districts. I have full rights in both of them to be free from arbitrary search or arrest, to not be deported for criticizing the wrong country on social media, to buy land, to sell things, to take a job and earn money, and to travel from one district to the other.

However, I don't have the right to vote in both of them, or to be elected to Congress from both of them. I have to pick.

So this is the problem: nativist authoritarians both in the US and other countries like to tie together the first set of rights with the second set of rights into one package they call citizenship. They want to inflict all kinds of crap like arbitrary arrest, censorship, and prohibitions on work and ownership on non-citizens.

If both we and the other country guaranteed the first set of freedoms with no asterisks to non-citizens, I'd be open to an agreement that you have to pick one or the other for voting.

But as long as either country screws non-citizens out of that first set of fundamental freedoms, then we owe it to people to let them not be screwed. If they need two passports to be able to do the things any freedom-respecting person thinks is fundamental, then we'll just have to tolerate the fact that they might vote twice.

I could be OK with a law that you shouldn't vote here and there, but I'm not willing to add any search and seizure to enforce it, nor am I willing to shift the burden of proof. Prosecutions or ballot denials would have to be limited to cases where someone was foolish enough to admit what they were doing, or the countries agreed to look at each other's voter rolls.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

This partially conflates citizenship and residency. Some countries condition voting (either at some level or at all levels) on residency. Others do not. I have Canadian citizenship. I can vote in provincial and federal elections, but not easily in mayoral elections. For a long time the government maintained that this right was subject to limitations and after prolonged expatriation (it's been the better part of 15 years for me) the right would expire, which I guess makes sense if you want to allow people who take temporary contract work or do school elsewhere but not people who have no intention of returning.

By contrast my buddy Tony has French and Italian citizenship. Not only do they both allow overseas voting, but they explicitly have districts for overseas voters (i.e. there is a person in the parliament who explicitly represents expatriates). And then some countries don't allow citizens who expatriate voting at all (India is an example).

It really depends on the size and shape of the diaspora -- obviously Ukraine is going to want Ukrainians abroad to vote, because so many are currently displaced.

I should say, as an empirical matter, overseas citizens very rarely vote. I used a freedom of information request to check how many overseas voted in my home district in Canada a few elections ago and the answer was "5" (including my wife and I). I gather in your line of argument, which yes I concede is hypothetical in an effort to steel-man an argument I get the sense you don't fully agree with, the impact is secondary to the concept that a person with multiple citizenships has an entitlement that single citizens don't have, which, fair enough but I still think there's value in recognizing that most countries think through this and make the right choice for themselves subject to their values.

[ducksalad]

Thanks. I agree most countries have thought this through in accordance with their values. As someone who prefers small and permissive government, and only has a say in the US, my vote is to let Americans jump through whatever hoops the foreigner's values require, in order to do stuff anyone ought to be able to.

Example: My wife and I would like, in our retirement, to have a summer home someplace nice and not stinking hot, and PEI or NS would be ideal. Due to some (very mildly) nativist and authoritarian laws up there it's not that easy unless we were Canadian citizens. Realistically we aren't going to do what it takes to become Canadians, so the dream ain't gonna happen. But if we did decide to pursue it, I'd appreciate *US MAGAs* not interfering by passing some stupid *US* law that we have to lose our Texas home and US citizenship.

It's unfortunate that Canada makes the house, the passport, and the voting into a package. I don't care about the last two.

Example: We also would like to visit my wife's birth country together. The laws there, which are severely awful, say that she can easily go with *their* passport and she could get me in as her husband on a US passport. But if neither of us have their passport it's way harder.

No loyalty, voting, or any of that. Just want to see her birthplace before we're too old to travel without our Trump and their dictator conspiring to make it impossible.

Perhaps it upsets M L that Americans might want to own a cabin in another country or visit an old home. He thinks it's disloyal or something. He should stuff it.

[Roger S]

A lot of countries let you visit for 90 days at a time. Some are starting to add longer-term visas.

[Roger S]

That case only found that a Japanese-American citizen could be convicted of treason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The opinion says that "[The defendant] had a dual nationality, a status long recognized in the law," and cites a case from 1939.

[Roger S]

The case depended on a lot of very unusual facts that would be extremely rare today. It is true that dual nationality is sometimes recognized for some purposes, but maybe not for O'Donnell.

[not guilty]

The cases cited in footnote 2 of the Kawakita opinion date all the way back to 1795.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ask them wot dun it?

Being a dual or "multi" citizen doesn't give anyone special rights, apart from the "special right" to be treated like a citizen in more than one country.

Practically speaking, whenever you're physically in one of your citizenship countries, the government simply ignores any other citizenships you might have and treats you like any other citizen.

[Roger S]

Or in Rosie O'Donnell's case, it could mean that her USA passport gets revoked, and she has to depend on her Ireland passport.

[Bubba Jones]

None of that matters if you are deported before you can get a hearing.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s simple, she can just come in from May-he-co and she’s golden!

[Longtobefree]

" . . . and that's with the Supreme Court's guarantee . . . "

No doubt.
First the SC guaranteed you couldn't kill your baby, then it guaranteed you could, now you can't again.
The court bounces around like they were publishing nutrition advice about coffee.

[Malika la Maize]

She should change her name to Richard Epstein, that’ll get Trump to stop talking about her.

[Eugene Volokh]

#EpsteinConfusion?

[Malika la Maize]

Yikes, Jefferey! But any Epstein would probably work (except Juan Luis Pedro Felipo de Huevos).

[Glaucomatose]

In fairness, I haven't looked at or talked about my 1L Torts casebook since I left the exam, so I guess talking about Richard Epstein may be rare, too.

[JonFrum]

Trump farts in someone's direction, and they come out of the woodwork taking him seriously. The rest of us find it amusing.

[Glaucomatose]

Plenty of dumb things that started out as “jokes” have turned out to be literal Trump administration policy - from abolishing birthright citizenship to deporting students who criticize Israel to taking away the independence of the Fed.

Can you help us out with a key on what idiocies we should be taking seriously and which ones we can ignore?

[SRG2]

Can you help us out with a key on what idiocies we should be taking seriously and which ones we can ignore?

It's like those Christian evangelicals who accept that some of the Bible is figurative while the rest is literal, but will never explain how one can tell which is which

[ducksalad]

At least most evangelicals don't *change* it from figurative to literal as some kind of bait and switch.

"Hey, we said that stoning stuff in Leviticus was figurative but now that we've got you at the island retreat center...."

[ducksalad]

And if he does it, will you be supporting it?

[David Nieporent]

That you think it's "amusing" that the president is a troll says a lot about you. Trouble is, he often is serious, and only retroactively claims to have been joking if he gets pushback.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does citizenship entail allegiance and if so how does that square with citizenship in more than one country?

[Roger S]

It does not square. That is why there is no such thing as dual citizenship.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Can't Trump just direct the appropriate federal agencies to nullify any documents or records for Rosie O'Donnell that are associated with citizenship? Her US passport can be cancelled, her social security number can be cancelled, etc. Goodbye U.S citizenship.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They've probably already gamed that out.

[Longtobefree]

If any of that could work, Biden's pen would have done it to Trump.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No lol. Unlike Trump and apparently most republicans now, Biden and democrats don’t view citizenship as stemming from the personal grace and favor of an individual ruler. So they would never ever do that. Seriously when have Dems ever talked about citizenship like Trump does? American liberalism rejects both blood and soil nationalism and personalist regimes. Anyone can be a citizen and absent extremely rare, narrow, and legally defined circumstances once you’re in, you’re in. Trump never saw it that way and republicans clearly don’t see it that way anymore.

Liberals might send Trump to the guillotine, but they’d never take away his citizenship. Some things are just too important.

[Roger S]

If the 14A requires dual citizenship, then why was this not discovered until 1990? Volokh points to some web site approving of dual citizenship, but that could have been written by some Biden administration official, and Pres. Trump could change the policy.

[ducksalad]

Wrong three ways:
There is currently no law against dual citizenship.
Trump isn't allowed to create new laws.
Congress has not delegated authority over dual citizenship to Trump.

Also, no one is claiming the 14th Amendment guarantees you a right to a second citizenship. The claim is that you are entitled to US citizenship regardless of any other citizenship.

So if you got enough votes, you could pass a law punishing holding a foreign citizenship, e.g. with prison or a fine. But no part of the punishment could be taking away your US citizenship. We can't even do that to murderers.

[Roger S]

So where is the law saying that O'Donnell can retain her USA citizenship after becoming an Ireland citizen? Trump could say that she has effectively renounced her USA citizenship.

[ducksalad]

Do you have some astonishingly ignorant belief that actions by individuals are illegal by default unless the government expressly says they are legal?

Do you have some false belief that the president has powers not authorized by the Constitution and the laws?

There is no law saying she can't get Irish citizenship, therefore she can.

There is no law saying Trump can deny her citizenship, therefore he can't.

[Roger S]

There is a law saying he can revoke her passport, if she effectively renounced her USA citizenship.

[SRG2]

Do any of the cultists here explicitly concede that Trump has no power to strip her citizenship?

[ducksalad]

If they did that, they wouldn't be cultists.

[MikeNY]

Never forgot one of the two inevitabilities: taxes. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expatriation-tax See also: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality.html