I'm curious. How does or how can a person renounce citizenship in the U.S. and leave the country without that person having a passport from the U.S. Or from any other country? I'm not planning to do this. I'm just really curious to know because I've read about people renouncing their citizenship for different reasons. Most think it's because of taxes. I'm sure people have other reasons. Can someone tell me how or if it's possible for someone to renounce citizenship if they don't have a passport for the U.S. or any other country?
Asked
Active
Viewed 886 times
2 Answers
6
I cannot rule out any loophole or freak occurrence but reasonable countries have rules in place to avoid such issues. People who renounce US citizenship for tax reasons (as opposed to ideological or personal reasons) will also secure another one beforehand because being stateless is extremely unpleasant and you need to live outside the US to be out of the reach of US taxes.
In the case of the US, renouncing citizenship is only possible from abroad. It seems that you don't have to prove you are a citizen or long-term resident where you are when renouncing your US citizenship so you could still find yourself staying somewhere illegally or become stateless with no easy way to travel but that wouldn't be the US' problem.
Because statelessness is generally considered to be a problem, other countries (e.g. France or Germany) have even more restrictive rules and only allow their nationals to renounce their citizenship if they already have or can be sure to get another one. Similarly, it's not possible to loose or be stripped of the French or German citizenship if you don't have another one. Both these countries and many others are also party to the 1961 Convention on the reduction of statelessness, which the US is not.
Gala
- 17,379
- 3
- 27
- 59
-
Excellent summary. But I would point out that you can always be deported to your native country, so a US native with no residence is still the US' problem. Consequently, not having a foreign residency or reasonable plan for obtaining one is a ground to fail the exit processes determination of serious intention. A stateless person would also request a 1951? geneva convention document from their country of residence if they needed to travel with no passport. – Jan 10 '15 at 00:01
-
3@lossleader: You can only be deported to a country if they accept you. And the U.S. has no obligation to accept a non-U.S. national. Although if you entered on a U.S. passport, the U.S. might be compelled to accept for reciprocity reasons (the U.S. wants to be able to deport people back). – user102008 Jan 10 '15 at 03:36
-
Thanks you for the replies with answer. Is their a way for someone to travel from the U.S. to some place like Japan even if a person has been denied a U.S. Passport from child support that's greater than say $50.000.00? I know a person will be denied a U.S. passport if they are in rearage of $2,500.00. How can someone get to leave the country to go to Japan where they would be able to work? It seems to me that being an American that they shouldn't keep a person from getting a passport to go to a place that they can make a living for their children and then being able to pay those things – user5940 Jan 10 '15 at 07:57
-
Here in the U.S. so many dads are being called dead beat dads. And most of them can't get work. And I think it's wrong to not let someone get a passport to go to a place that they can work and pay and catch up on child support. Is their a way to still get a passport without having to pay thousands of dollars for back child support? Or how could the person being denied a passport for child support still be able to go to Japan? If their is a way for someone to still be able to go to Japan, then how without a passport? Or is their another way to get a passport? I'm curious to know. And thank you. – user5940 Jan 10 '15 at 08:03
-
@user5940 That's a completely different question and I have no idea. Note that the assumption is probably that meeting your obligations is generally easier in your home country. Why would US lawmakers go out of their way to facilitate travel to Japan or some other random place? – Gala Jan 10 '15 at 15:29
-
-
@user5940: That's an unrelated question. But if the person is a non-U.S. national or dual national, then nothing prevents them from using their non-U.S. travel documents to go to Japan. Otherwise, the only places a U.S. citizen can feasibly travel to without a U.S. passport are Canada, Mexico, and potentially other adjacent countries. If they gain residence in that country, they might then be able to get a travel document for resident aliens who can't get a passport. – user102008 Jan 13 '15 at 01:36
-
As a practical matter, an expired U.S. passport might be used. Airlines and Immigration officials check, but oftentimes an individual is permitted to travel. I haven't heard of many cases where Japan has granted asylum to individuals who were not of Japanese descent (Former Pres. Fujimori of Peru is one successful example). – user26732 Jan 14 '15 at 16:10
-
@user26732 Why the focus on asylum? And why would you expect to hear about individuals being granted (or refused) asylum? – Gala Jan 14 '15 at 18:01
-
@Gala: I follow the official acts of the Japanese Foreign Ministry systematically. The focus on asylum is because the OP wanted to renounce US citizenship in situ and was then looking for a way to leave. Asylum can sometimes mean a ticket out. – user26732 Jan 15 '15 at 12:45
-
@user26732 We are back to square one but asylum is about staying where you already are and not a ticket out of anything. And I don't know about Japan but asylum decisions typically aren't a matter of public record. In any case, my answer or the discussion above certainly aren't about asylum. – Gala Jan 15 '15 at 22:01
-
But, if you renounce US citizenship while still in the United States, one of the few ways to get to another country--though I suppose you could happily live in the US given your stateless condition--is by requesting asylum at a foreign embassy. Query whether, given Afoyim v. Rusk, it is even possible to renounce constitutional citizenship at all without a finding of treason. – user26732 Jan 16 '15 at 08:17
-
@user26732 Afoyim v. Rusk is about being stripped of US citizenship, not renouncing it. The latter is definitely happening without treason. – Gala Jan 16 '15 at 13:42
-
To statutory citizens; not constitutional ones. If you're a statutory citizen (i.e., naturalized) and you vote in a foreign election or enlist in a foreign army, you automatically lose your U.S. citizenship. So if you're a statutory citizen, no need to formally renounce your citizenship, just enlist in Her Majesty's army. – user26732 Jan 16 '15 at 15:01
-
@user26732 How is that even related to this whole discussion? That's yet again another issue. The article I linked to and this entire thread is about renouncing citizenship, which is certainly possible even if you are not under threat of losing it automatically. You won't ever understand anything if you keep mixing things up that way. – Gala Jan 16 '15 at 19:29
-
@Gala:Let's say you're a naturalized citizen. You want to renounce your US citizenship, but the requirements are onerous. So you stroll down to the consulate of your previous (or dual) nationality and vote in an election. Ta-da! You've just been stripped of your US citizenship. No renunciation procedures required. Now you need a way out of the country. Ask for asylum or travel documents while you're at the consulate. Offer to enlist in the army "back home" while you're at it. Soon you'll be on your way. – user26732 Jan 16 '15 at 20:50
-
@user26732 I am sure we could imagine many complex scenarios and also find many other interesting topics to discuss. But I still don't see how this has anything to do with the question at hand. Incidentally, note that your scenario requires having another citizenship (or do you know many countries where you can vote in a consulate without being a citizen?) so no statelessness and still absolutely nothing to do with asylum. – Gala Jan 16 '15 at 22:55
-
In the example, I wrote, "let's say you're a naturalized citizen." This presumes you have another nationality. The original question asked, "can I get rid of my US c/ship without going overseas?" My scenario showed that the answer is yes under some not uncommon circumstances. – user26732 Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
-
@user26732 You might want to read it again because it's not what the question asked at all, it strongly implies someone who has no other citizenship and explicitly asks about renouncing citizenship. But whatever the case may be, if the person has another citizenship, the solution is simply to apply for a passport from your other country of citizenship… Still no reason for all the nonsense about asylum. Incidentally, if that's the question, how come your answer does not address it at all? – Gala Jan 21 '15 at 10:18
-
The question has multiple parts. One of parts addressed leaving the country after renouncing citizenship. One way of doing this is to first seek asylum in the diplomatic premises of another country. If this is nonsense, Julian Assange would most likely beg to differ. I see no point in continuing these comments. – user26732 Jan 21 '15 at 15:52
-
@user26732 Again, when will you stop mixing things up that have nothing to do with each other? Julian Assange did not renounce UK citizenship, isn't stateless or anything like that. He is just trying to evade law enforcement, something entirely different… And, again, this is a very unusual highly politicized special case, it has nothing to do with the regular operation of asylum or nationality law anywhere. Importantly, he did not even manage to leave the country… Concretely, all this shows is that embassies are inviolable, which is true but even less related to the question than the rest. – Gala Jan 22 '15 at 14:31
-
There are two parts to the question: one, how can I renounce citizenship without leaving the country? Afroyim teaches that if you are a statutory citizen, you can do so by voting in a foreign election. The second part is, how can you leave the country without a passport? My previous answer focusing on Assange addressed that. The UK has not given him safe passage but safe passage has been granted on other occasions in the past. – user26732 Jan 23 '15 at 15:11
-
-
I won't repeat the second part of the two-part question for a third time. But let's take another example, that of Cardinal Mindszenty, who was given asylum in the US Embassy in Budapest in 1956 and who subsequently lived in the Embassy for 15 years until the US was able to arrange (with the collaboration of others) for his safe conduct out of the country. Asylum granted, transport out of Hungary accomplished, no Hungarian passport required. – user26732 Jan 24 '15 at 19:58
-
@user26732 Far-fetched examples really don't add much to the discussion. I have heard of them too but what I am telling you is that it's quite untypical of what asylum really is in general and wholly unrelated to the question of renouncing one's citizenship or even travelling as a stateless person. – Gala Jan 24 '15 at 20:34
3
You could ask for political asylum in another country. Let's say you are a spy (or wish to become one). You visit the embassy of the country you wish to spy for and if they agree, they will give you papers to help you get out of the United States or arrange for a travel method that doesn't involve documents such as passports.
It used to be possible to travel to Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas without a passport but I do not know if post-9/11 this is still the case.
You could certainly get a sailboat and sail to Cuba and ask for asylum, but you probably wouldn't get it.
Once upon a time refugee travel documents were fairly common, but I don't think this is still the case. Cuban refugees were given travel documents by the United States that functioned as a passport but which were not passports. The Vatican issued travel documents after WWII as did the Red Cross. Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany went to Shanghai, China because it was one of the few cities in the world that would accept individuals without the need for visas.
user26732
- 285
- 1
- 2
-
I definitely wouldn't become a spy lol. And I understand the answer and thanks a lot. Now I know this is a very good place to find answers to so many questions. – user5940 Jan 11 '15 at 08:47
-
I think this answer confuses many things. Except in very limited and special cases, you need to reach a country first before applying for asylum. If you manage to reach an embassy willing to take you, that would still not change your situation with respect to the host country. They have no obligation to provide safe passage or anything. The best you could hope is to be made a citizen of said country but that's a completely different thing and wholly unrelated to asylum. – Gala Jan 11 '15 at 10:35
-
Refugee travel documents still exist but it's the same: You first need to reach a country, be granted asylum and only then can you apply for such documents. Countries only ever give them to people who are residents (and thus commit themselves to take them back if some other country want to expel them). The US obviously would not grant one to someone who was a US citizen and has no right to stay in the country. – Gala Jan 11 '15 at 10:36
-
@Gala: "They have no obligation to provide safe passage or anything..." If they sneak you out, you're out. You can be granted asylum at an embassy: look at Julian Assange holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, Cardinal M. in Hungary in the 1950's, G'ral Noriega in the Vatican Embassy, there are several examples. – user26732 Jan 11 '15 at 19:00
-
@Gala: when it comes to political asylum, every case is a "special" case. There are few examples of entire groups being given asylum. Cubans in the U.S. are an unusual case in this regard. – user26732 Jan 11 '15 at 19:02
-
@user26732 Well, if you want to consider spy-movie scenarios anything is possible but Julian Assange is still in the Ecuadorian embassy and cold-war era shenanigans are not really relevant to what would happen to a regular schmuck would would end up somewhere with no passport… – Gala Jan 11 '15 at 19:03
-
@user26732 Not really, asylum is unfortunately common and there is a large body of law (both national and international) about it. If you are unfamiliar with this you might not realize it but the cases you mention are decidedly unrepresentative of what asylum really is. – Gala Jan 11 '15 at 19:05
-
@Gala. I disagree. At least in North America, with the exception of Cuban nationals seeking to enter the United States, every case is individualized. All Cuban nationals need to do is dry their feet. Everyone else must prove a well-founded fear of persecution. Cold war shenanigans? That never happens anymore, right? Edward Snowden in Moscow, the Cuban 5 prisoner exchange, the forced landing of Evo Morales' presidential plane, all in the distant past? – user26732 Jan 11 '15 at 19:55
-
@user26732 What is it you are disagreeing with? Proving a well-founded fear of persecution is exactly the type of things I alluded to but that's a process thousands of people are going through all over the world. That's quite different from the way Snowden and the handful of high profile flight-to-the-embassy cases you mentioned were handled. You can play games with the world “individualized” but surely you can understand the difference… – Gala Jan 11 '15 at 23:35
-
@Gala: it's not a game. Cuban cases are not individualized, all others are. – user26732 Jan 13 '15 at 09:26
-
@user26732 OK but you do get how Noriega, Assange, Snowden, cold-war spies and a few other high-profile cases are highly unusual? Other asylum cases just aren't special in the same way, individualized or not. – Gala Jan 13 '15 at 11:06
-
@Gala: There are probably less than a hundred cases in the past one hundred years. – user26732 Jan 14 '15 at 15:00
-
@user26732 Cases like the ones you mentioned, certainly, that's precisely my point. OTOH, there are tens of thousands successful run-of-the-mill asylum applications in the EU each year… – Gala Jan 15 '15 at 22:00