DOS Cable on Consular Reinvention/Loss of Nationality
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY LONDON
INFO AMEMBASSY SEOUL
AMEMBASSY ISLANABAD
AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA
AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
UNCLAS STATE 034797
E.O. 112356: N/A
TAGS: CPAS
Subject: Consular Reinvention; Loss of Nationality
Ref: London 1536
1. CA/OCS has read with interest Embassy London's reinvention suggestions on loss of nationality cases. We are well aware of the problems in this area and, in fact, our thinking on the issues raised in the cable closely mirrors the Embassy's. It is no longer possible to terminate American's citizenship without the citizens cooperation. The laws should be amended to reflect this reality. We intend to propose new legislation that would require American citizens to expressly renounce U.S. citizenship before a Consul as the only means to divest themselves of U.S. citizenship in all cases other than those in which the individual assents to loss and thus allow the Congress to assess the policy dimensions of such a change. We recognize that at certain posts, like Seoul, a requirement that persons desiring to lose citizenship comply with the formal renunciation procedures of section 349(A)(5) will cause a marginal increase in workload. (Currently, approximately 30-40 persons per month in Korea affirm that their naturalizations there were undertaken with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and loss under section 349(A)(1) INA).
2. With regard to the elimination of the citizenship questionnaire, we believe the Embassy's suggestion is sound. Clearly the questionnaire is no longer adequate for processing loss cases given the recent INA amendments and current interpretation of the law. Therefore, beginning immediately, addressee posts need no longer use the citizenship questionnaire for any loss of nationality case unless the citizen intended by his/her act to relinquish U.S. citizenship. This includes 349(A)(4) cases. Our experience with 349(A)(4) cases, (an unusual number of which we have seen in recent years--mostly from Eastern European posts) is that they present unique questions which we have had to address in a manner tailored to the individual case. Therefore, rather than using the citizenship questionnaire, posts should advise CA/OCS when such a case comes to its attention and provide the following information. We can work with the post to develop the case appropriately:
A) Name
B) Date/Place of Birth
C) How U.S Citizenship was acquired
D) Does the person have the Nationality of the Foreign State? If
so, how and when is the person acquire this nationality?
E) Position in Foreign Government
F) Brief description of duties.
G) If elected or appointed.
H) Any statements regarding intent to retain or relinquish U.S.
citizenship.
3. Cases involving potentially expatriating acts other than 349(A)(4) and (A)(5) in which the citizen did not intend to relinquish citizenship should continue to be handled in the manner proposed by 90 State 121931 minus the questionnaire requirement, i.e. a certification signed by the Consular Officer should be placed in the file indicating that the act was performed but that it did not result in loss of nationality. The reasoning for this is twofold. (1) it is still a legal requirement that a determination be made once an expatriating act has been committed and (2) it is important for the Dept and the citizen to have documented evidence of non-loss in the event the issue comes up in the citizen's future travels. The citizen affected may, upon request, be given a copy of the certification. We will make this policy effective for all posts and instructions will be forthcoming shortly in an Aldac. Note: The citizenship questionnaire may continue to be used for first time applicants if warranted, e.g. former 301(B) cases (see Para 5).
4. On the subject of reinventing loss procedures, CA/OCS has been considering several other ideas. We are thinking of reformatting the CLN so that the document contains a statement of voluntary relinquishment on its face. In that way the reader will know that Consul, Dept and Expatriate were all involved in the decision and there will be no doubt about the intent of the individual and the resulting action.
5. In addition, in implementing the INTCA, we will be developing a very simple form to allow citizens who failed to comply with the retention requirements to regain their citizenship. Any comments or further suggestions posts may have on these ideas would be welcome.
6. We applaud the excellent suggestions from Embassy London which are reflective of the innovative thinking of the field. We encourage more such cables. If posts have any questions on the instructions in this cable, please contact Ca/OCS/PRI: Carmen Diplacido (phone) 202/647-3666 or fax 202/647-6201.
Christopher
27MM6A08