While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not
encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may
cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government
to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals
overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of
their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the
person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of
that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents
(and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country
or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered
a citizen under that country’s laws. (The oath you take when
you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country
does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.)
Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries
should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in
the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and
22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and
enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited
exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
Under Singaporean law, an individual who automatically acquires
Singaporean citizenship at birth retains that status even after
acquiring U.S. citizenship. Singapore does not recognize dual
nationality beyond the age of 21.
If you wish to renounce your U.S. citizenship, please
send an email with your full name, date, place of birth, U.S.
passport number and residency status in Singapore to
[email protected]
================================================================
A U.S. citizen who is a resident or citizen of a foreign country
may be subject to compulsory military service in that country.
Although the United States recognizes the problems that may
be caused by such foreign military service, there is little that we
can do to prevent it since each sovereign country has the right to
make its own laws on military service and apply them as it sees fit
to its citizens and residents.
Such participation by citizens of our country in the internal
affairs of foreign countries can cause problems in the conduct of
our foreign relations and may involve U.S. citizens in hostilities
against countries with which we are at peace. For this reason, U.S.
citizens facing the possibility of foreign military service should
do what is legally possible to avoid such service.
Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of
foreign military service originating within the United States. The
current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the
United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. ,
163 U.S. 632 (1896), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court
ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to
go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however,
when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a
violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have
violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department
of Justice.
Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign
country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could
subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of
U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention
of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed
forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves
in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or
non-commissioned officer.
Loss of U.S. nationality was almost immediate consequences of
foreign military service and the other acts listed in Section
349(a) until 1967 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision
in Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253. In
that decision, the court declared unconstitutional the provisions
of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting
in a foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated
foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated that a
U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen...
unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."
Further confirmation of the necessity to establish the citizen's
intent to relinquish nationality before expatriation will result
came in the opinion in Vance v. Terrazas
, 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The Court stated that "expatriation depends
on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and
its assessment of his conduct." The Court also indicated that a
person's intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by
statements or actions.
Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause
loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship
normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality
cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption
that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state
not engaged in hostilities against the United
States does not have the intention to
relinquish citizenship. Voluntary service in the armed forces
of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could
be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S.
citizenship.
Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the
age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of
Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of
eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States citizenship in
the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State.