|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 提上来抬杠：双重国籍和永久的忠诚 |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
提上来抬杠：双重国籍和永久的忠诚 -- 消极 - (1980 Byte) 2005-6-13 周一, 上午4:22 (751 reads) |
钢蹦儿
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
这个案例的关键结论是: Congress could not designate an action as automatically resulting in loss of citizenship: even if such an action were voluntarily performed, it would still be necessary to show that the individual did so with the intent of giving up citizenship.
Laurence Terrazas was a dual US/Mexican citizen by birth (born in the US to a Mexican father). While a university student in Mexico, he signed a document reaffirming his Mexican citizenship. This document contained a section (required by Mexican law) by which Terrazas explicitly renounced his US citizenship.
When the State Department ruled Terrazas was no longer a US citizen on account of this act, he tried to argue in the courts that he hadn't really meant to renounce his US citizenship, despite what was on the Mexican document he had signed. The Supreme Court disagreed (by a 5-4 majority) and held Terrazas to the strict wording of the Mexican document, which it concluded he had understood perfectly well at the time he had signed it.
The Terrazas decision established two major points. First, although intent to give up US citizenship could be ascertained either from an individual's specific statements or by inference from his actions and conduct, the "assent" principle of Afroyim v. Rusk required that intent to be proved separately from a potentially expatriating (citizenship-losing) action. Congress could not sidestep the issue of intent by declaring a certain action to be inherently incompatible with keeping US citizenship, and then decreeing that voluntary performance of such an action conclusively proved intent to give up citizenship.
Second, although intent to give up citizenship had to be proved, Congress was free to establish the standard of proof. Specifically, it was OK for such intent to be established via a "preponderance of evidence" standard (as in a lawsuit). It was not constitutionally necessary for a loss-of-citizenship case to be treated like a criminal trial, requiring intent to be proved by "clear and convincing" evidence.
Although the "standard of proof" part of the Supreme Court's decision was reached by a 5-4 majority, all nine justices (including two who had been in the minority on the Afroyim case) upheld the principles in Afroyim. Further, eight of the nine justices (in three separate opinions) agreed that Congress could not designate an action as automatically resulting in loss of citizenship: even if such an action were voluntarily performed, it would still be necessary to show that the individual did so with the intent of giving up citizenship.
"Vance" in this case was Cyrus Vance, who was Secretary of State under President Carter.
The Terrazas holding regarding intent was eventually incorporated into the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act by Congress in 1986 (Public Law 99-653).
Despite the latitude expressly granted to the government in this case with respect to the standard of proof required in loss-of-citizenship cases, the State Department has effectively adopted a "clear and convincing evidence" standard in its current policy on dual citizenship and loss of citizenship.
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
