You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] HoneyNutStallmans [S] ago 

Seems like an arbitrary reason to not be treated equally.

0
1

[–] DickHertz 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If you choose to abandon your country you shouldn't be equal to foreign citizens because you have rejected your citizenship and it doesn't make sense to allow people to switch off when it's not favorable to them then back on when it is. That seems reasonable at least to me. Why would we as a group want someone back under those conditions?

0
0

[–] HoneyNutStallmans [S] ago  (edited ago)

you have rejected your citizenship and it doesn't make sense to allow people to switch off when it's not favorable to them then back on when it is.

What do you mean by "switch off"? You get no benefits as a former citizen than you would as any other foreign national.

When you relinquish, you forfeit:

1) The right to enter the country at any time

2) The right to work in the country

3) The right to live in the country

A person has absolutely nothing to gain in terms of rights and benefits given by a country by renouncing citizenship of that country. There is nothing conveniant to gain in the country of citizenship when a person renounces citizenship.

Any former citizen should be able to apply for work, residence or student visas just like the other foreign nationals and without discrimination.

Why would we as a group want someone back under those conditions?

Because it is an arbitrary measure, and the US is really good at arbitrary measures when it comes to denying international travel. Strangely, lots of illegal immigrants currently have more rights than the former citizen. A foreign national is a foreign national.

It seems like, in that case, the ability to arbitrarily deny a former citizen entry is easily turned into a political tool used to exact revenge.

Nothing is more American than holding a grudge against someone who seperates himself from America.