richw@richw.org (Rich Wales) wrote in
news:20050429143752.C78351.richw@whodunit.richw.org:
> Bruno Panetta wrote:
>
> > Thanks, I was thinking of the case of an Italian guy
> > (I think Bernabei was his name) . . . .
>
> His name was Aldo Mario Bellei, and his case was Rogers v. Bellei,
> 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
>
> The Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the 14th Amendment's
> "citizenship clause" did not prevent Congress from revoking US
> citizenship acquired by virtue of one's having been born outside
> the US to an American parent or parents.
>
> The statute under which Bellei lost his US citizenship was repealed
> in 1978 -- along with some other, related provisions which appear
> to have formed the basis for the persistent urban myth that US law
> allegedly requires "born dual" US/other citizens to choose a single
> citizenship when they grow up (current US law does not in fact
> include any such requirement).
>
> Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
> *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
> or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
> are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
>
>
I beleive you are probably the expert on this. However, the citizenship
clause refers to brith in the US, and that would be the reason it had no
bearing on revoking the citizenship of someone born outside the US. I'm
sure you probably know that, but it's not apparent to anyone else reading
your post. |
