Afroyim v. Rusk was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The Bancroft Treaties were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable. It is now virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it.
About Afroyim v. Rusk in brief
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The decision opened the way for a wider acceptance of dual citizenship in United States law. The Bancroft Treaties were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable. It is now virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it. The Constitution does not specifically deal with loss of citizenship. An amendment proposed by Congress in 1810 would, if ratified, have provided that any citizen who accepted any present, pension, office or emolument from a foreign country, without the consent of Congress, would cease to be a citizen of theUnited States. However, this amendment was never ratified by a sufficient number of state legislatures and, as a result, never became a part of the Constitution. In 1857, the Supreme Court held in Dred Scott v. Sandford that African slaves, former slaves, and their descendants were not eligible to be citizens. After the Civil War, steps were taken to grant citizenship to the freed slaves. In 1898, a man born in the U. S. to Chinese parents was legally domiciled in the country. After ruling in Wong Ark, that Wong Wong was a Chinese citizen despite his ancestry, the Court went on to state that his right to citizenship had not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for loss of U. s. citizenship based on foreign government or military service. This provision also mandated loss for desertion from the armed forces, remaining outside the United S. in order to evade military service during wartime, or voting in a foreign election in a war-torn country. This statute also mandatedloss of citizenship for remaining in the UnitedS. during wartime. In the 1990s, the US Department of State adopted revised policies adopted in 1990 by the US State Department. It has historically been accepted that certain actions could result in loss of American citizenship. This possibility was noted in a case involving a Chinese who were legally domed in the US. The case was United States v. Kim Wong, an 1898 case involving an American born in China. The Court ruled in this case that Wong was not a U. S. citizen despite the fact that his birthright to citizenship was not lost or taking away by his state of domicile. In that case, the court ruled that his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified by state legislatures in 1868. The impact of the ruling was narrowed by a later case, Rogers v. Bellei, in which the Court determined that the fourteenth Amendment safeguarded citizenship only when a person was born or naturalized in the States, and that Congress retained authority to regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the US to an American parent.
You want to know more about Afroyim v. Rusk?
This page is based on the article Afroyim v. Rusk published in Wikipedia (as of Nov. 03, 2020) and was automatically summarized using artificial intelligence.
