Article|Archive
Senator Bernie Moreno wants to outlaw dual citizenship. The Ohio Republican introduced a new bill last week that would require Americans to exclusively be U.S. citizens. Moreno, who is originally from Colombia, renounced his Colombian citizenship when he naturalized at age 18. “Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege,” he said in a statement. “And if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing.”
Moreno’s idea should be viewed with deep skepticism. It raises a host of troubling legal, logistical and political issues. Instead of making the country safer or stronger, his bill would only impose an unnecessary loyalty test on American citizens.
Under existing law, Americans are allowed to hold dual citizenship with another country. Some people hold dual passports from birth, or because of their family or work situations. These people include scholars, military personnel, diplomats, business leaders and even the first lady, who has dual U.S./Slovenian citizenship. Dual citizenship is such an established concept that the government does not track how many people hold it; experts say the number could range anywhere from 500,000 to 5.7 million.
If enacted, Moreno’s bill would intrude into the lives of all these people. Under its requirements, dual citizenship holders would have one year to either declare their U.S. citizenship to the Department of State or renounce it to Homeland Security. Dual citizenship holders who fail to comply with these terms would be deemed by the U.S. to have forfeited their American citizenship.
Such provisions are problematic because they contradict Supreme Court precedent. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the court ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a person cannot lose their citizenship unless they willingly surrender it. In Vance v. Terrazas (1980), the court likewise held that “Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent.” So Moreno’s idea that the government can strip someone’s citizenship away for noncompliance with a new law is likely unconstitutional.
Ending dual citizenship would be impractical because it would require a whole new level of bureaucracy. Both the State Department and Homeland Security would have to create rules, procedures and verification processes for people to declare or renounce their citizenship. A database would be needed to keep track of compliance with Moreno’s proposed law. But aren’t conservatives like Moreno usually opposed to any expansion of government?
Ending dual citizenship would also be economically unwise. It would limit the ability of some U.S. workers to compete in the global economy, by making it harder for them to access employment and investment opportunities overseas.
Moreno’s bill says that the current system of dual citizenship “may create conflicts of interest and divided loyalties.” Yet dual citizenship holders have not been shown to pose any threat to the country. In contrast, the idea that people with dual citizenship are somehow less loyal to the U.S. is itself divisive. Some advocacy organizations have objected to Moreno’s “divided loyalties” rhetoric because this kind of language has historically been used to marginalize Jews. These groups warn that such talk could contribute to the growing antisemitism on the right.
Politically, ending dual citizenship would not be a popular move. A February Harris poll found that 49 percent of Americans had interest in obtaining or already had dual citizenship. Among millennials, this figure was higher, at 66 percent.
To be clear, years ago Moreno chose to renounce his Colombian citizenship when he became an American. He should allow everyone else in similar circumstances the freedom to make such a decision for themselves.
Some people may dismiss Moreno’s proposal as a political stunt, with slim chances of becoming law. However, it deserves to be taken seriously given the current political climate. The Trump administration has cracked down on virtually every form of legal and illegal immigration. It is not a stretch to imagine the president (who endorsed Moreno during his 2024 Senate run) to come out in favor of ending dual citizenship. Moreno’s idea could easily be seen as aligning with the “America First” agenda, and Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Now is the time for lawmakers to speak out against this dangerous bill.
Congress must reject Moreno’s misguided and harmful proposal. Holding dual citizenship does not diminish any American’s allegiance to the U.S.
Senator Bernie Moreno wants to outlaw dual citizenship. The Ohio Republican introduced a new bill last week that would require Americans to exclusively be U.S. citizens. Moreno, who is originally from Colombia, renounced his Colombian citizenship when he naturalized at age 18. “Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege,” he said in a statement. “And if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing.”
Moreno’s idea should be viewed with deep skepticism. It raises a host of troubling legal, logistical and political issues. Instead of making the country safer or stronger, his bill would only impose an unnecessary loyalty test on American citizens.
Under existing law, Americans are allowed to hold dual citizenship with another country. Some people hold dual passports from birth, or because of their family or work situations. These people include scholars, military personnel, diplomats, business leaders and even the first lady, who has dual U.S./Slovenian citizenship. Dual citizenship is such an established concept that the government does not track how many people hold it; experts say the number could range anywhere from 500,000 to 5.7 million.
If enacted, Moreno’s bill would intrude into the lives of all these people. Under its requirements, dual citizenship holders would have one year to either declare their U.S. citizenship to the Department of State or renounce it to Homeland Security. Dual citizenship holders who fail to comply with these terms would be deemed by the U.S. to have forfeited their American citizenship.
Such provisions are problematic because they contradict Supreme Court precedent. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the court ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a person cannot lose their citizenship unless they willingly surrender it. In Vance v. Terrazas (1980), the court likewise held that “Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent.” So Moreno’s idea that the government can strip someone’s citizenship away for noncompliance with a new law is likely unconstitutional.
Ending dual citizenship would be impractical because it would require a whole new level of bureaucracy. Both the State Department and Homeland Security would have to create rules, procedures and verification processes for people to declare or renounce their citizenship. A database would be needed to keep track of compliance with Moreno’s proposed law. But aren’t conservatives like Moreno usually opposed to any expansion of government?
Ending dual citizenship would also be economically unwise. It would limit the ability of some U.S. workers to compete in the global economy, by making it harder for them to access employment and investment opportunities overseas.
Moreno’s bill says that the current system of dual citizenship “may create conflicts of interest and divided loyalties.” Yet dual citizenship holders have not been shown to pose any threat to the country. In contrast, the idea that people with dual citizenship are somehow less loyal to the U.S. is itself divisive. Some advocacy organizations have objected to Moreno’s “divided loyalties” rhetoric because this kind of language has historically been used to marginalize Jews. These groups warn that such talk could contribute to the growing antisemitism on the right.
Politically, ending dual citizenship would not be a popular move. A February Harris poll found that 49 percent of Americans had interest in obtaining or already had dual citizenship. Among millennials, this figure was higher, at 66 percent.
To be clear, years ago Moreno chose to renounce his Colombian citizenship when he became an American. He should allow everyone else in similar circumstances the freedom to make such a decision for themselves.
Some people may dismiss Moreno’s proposal as a political stunt, with slim chances of becoming law. However, it deserves to be taken seriously given the current political climate. The Trump administration has cracked down on virtually every form of legal and illegal immigration. It is not a stretch to imagine the president (who endorsed Moreno during his 2024 Senate run) to come out in favor of ending dual citizenship. Moreno’s idea could easily be seen as aligning with the “America First” agenda, and Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Now is the time for lawmakers to speak out against this dangerous bill.
Congress must reject Moreno’s misguided and harmful proposal. Holding dual citizenship does not diminish any American’s allegiance to the U.S.
