Leaving US after naturalization?

B

bobikk

Registered Users (C)
Hi All,

One of my immediate family members has been diagnosed with a very serious illness recently in my home country and I'd like to move back there for anywhere between 6 - 12 months but it's also possible that I will want to stay for longer/ever.
Now the problem is that I've been naturalized just a month ago in US.

Can I just leave like that? I read somewhere online that there used to be a law that required new citizens to reside in US at least 1 year before they can move out side of US. But I also read it was repealed by Congress in 1994 or something like that.

Quote from: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#moveabroad
"It was once the case that a naturalized US citizen could lose his citizenship by remaining outside the US for an extended period. However, this provision was invalidated by the Supreme Court in Schneider v. Rusk (1964) and was repealed by Congress in 1978. More recently, a naturalized citizen could lose his citizenship by setting up a permanent residence abroad within one year following US naturalization. This provision was repealed by Congress in 1994, however, and no longer applies. "

Does anybody have any info or legal opinion about this?
Can they really take my citizenship back because of this?

Thanks
 
There is no such requirement any more. You can leave any time for any length of time. You will need a US passport and depending on where you are going - a visa that allows 6-12 months stay.
 
I disagree. Citizenship does not decide where home is. I was an Indian citizen but I have never lived in India, so this time last year, home was still California for me as my family are there.

Home is where you feel at home.
 
cafeconleche said:
I disagree. Citizenship does not decide where home is.
Click to expand...

There are many ways of obtaining citizenship and, many times, it is purely a matter of bureaucracy/regulations and, in such cases, I would actually strongly agree that it has nothing to do with where "home" is. However...

cafeconleche said:
Home is where you feel at home.
Click to expand...

If someone does not feel at home in the USA, then they have no business, as an adult, naturalizing as a US citizen IMHO. When an adult naturalizes as a US citizen it is no mere accident of birth, but an oath that an adult makes of their own free will before God. If they don't feel comfortable making a genuine commitment to the USA then they should postpone their decision unless/until they do.

It is the oath--not the fact of citizenship by itself--that should establish that the USA is "home".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember to file tax returns every year. As a US citizen you have that obligation, even if you go back to your country of birth. You still have to help us pay the debt ;)
 
Well, the idea that the oath is taken before god is subjective. I don't worship god(s), so this has no effect, the same way that when someone renounces all allegiance to a foreign power and keeps their other citizenship(s), part of the oath has no effect.

For me, home is now the US, but for others, they might have taken up US citizenship for other reasons as life is complex.
 
cafeconleche said:
Well, the idea that the oath is taken before god is subjective. I don't worship god(s), so this has no effect, the same way that when someone renounces all allegiance to a foreign power and keeps their other citizenship(s), part of the oath has no effect.

For me, home is now the US, but for others, they might have taken up US citizenship for other reasons as life is complex.
Click to expand...

Many countries forbid dual citizenship and in such cases the oath has very serious effect. Many countries that currently permit dual citizenship did forbid dual citizenship in the past, and the pendulum could swing back at any time. The USA is currently fairly tolerant of dual citizenship but that has not always been the case and could change at any time.

One need only look to political figures in various countries to see that dual citizenship makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Barack Obama was forced to prove his US citizenship recently despite being a natural born US citizen, apparently because people were uncomfortable about the fact that his father's side of the family is Kenyan. In Canada, Michael Ignatieff spent his entire political career in a somewhat unsuccessful attempt to fend off criticism that he was "American"--and he didn't even have a green card when he lived in the USA.

Only a fool would take an oath with the strong language contained in the USA citizenship oath and expect that both countries will give them the best of both worlds for the rest of their lives. It may work out that way, but no one should count on it.
 
Many countries do forbid dual citizenship, so this is just a discussion about what home can be. I never said that oaths are always obscure, but at this time, the US citizenship oath does need amending, and as such home can still be subjective.

Of course, things change, and one has to adapt accordingly, so your last sentence is true in that one should not count on it for the rest of one's life.
 
CalGreenCard said:
It is the oath--not the fact of citizenship by itself--that should establish that the USA is "home".
Click to expand...
There's no wording in the oath that implies that the US becomes "home". Likewise, pledging to defend a country does not mean that it becomes someone's "home." Home is a personal choice, not one regulated by taking an oath to defend a country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top