Mexico lets Mexicans renounce citizenship if they want. They just have to go to the consulate and do some paperwork. (Almost no one does.)

https://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/sandiego/index.php/doble-nacionalidad/renuncia-de-la-nacionalidad-mexicana

What Mexico doesn’t do is treat the U.S. naturalization oath as automatically cancelling Mexican citizenship. They stopped doing so in 1998 if I remember correctly.

In Mexico’s defense, the U.S. started that particular bad habit first. The 1980 Supreme Court case Vance v. Terrazas was about a guy born in the U.S. to Mexican parents (Terrazas) who, as part of the graduation paperwork at a public university in Mexico, signed a paper saying he renounced allegiance to the United States and swore allegiance to Mexico. SCOTUS said that Vance (U.S. Secretary of State) couldn’t automatically conclude, just by looking at the words in the oath, that Terrazas intended to give up U.S. citizenship. In other words, SCOTUS adopted a legal presumption that oaths of allegiance to other countries are meaningless and sworn with false intent.

In 1996, the State Department promulgated regulations (22 CFR 50.40) codifying that presumption. By 2014, they started charging a $2350 administrative fee for honest ex-Americans who’d sworn an oath of allegiance to another country and wanted State to overturn the presumption of false intent in their individual case.

I thought that restrictions of foreigners owning property in Mexico applied only to coastal lands and within 100 miles (some such distance) from a border, that the foreigner must partner (it can be in a SA), not in majority, with a Mexican national.

This is basically right. Except you don’t even need to partner with a Mexican citizen, you can just get a Mexican lawyer to create a fideicomiso for you (kind of like a trust) and assign the land to it, then you’ll have full control over the land.

Nothing says loyalty to new country like not giving up (abjuring) previous citizenship, especially because of personal benefits.

The U.S. could just tell all the immigrants at naturalization ceremonies that they’ve got six months or a year or however long to send proof to USCIS that they went to the consulate and cancelled their old country’s citizenship, or their naturalization will be cancelled as fraudulent.. Norway, Estonia, Japan, and Singapore all do this, for example.

There is already one first-world territory that has de jure open borders with at least three third world hellholes: any citizen of Afghanistan, Egypt, or Venezuela can move to Svalbard and live there peacefully under Norwegian law and Norwegian institutions, thanks to the Svalbard Treaty. So why isn’t Svalbard the richest island on the planet?

It’s a bit windy and chilly there (slightly above 0 F in the winter), but $78 trillion extra dollars should cover a lot of heating bills and roof repairs. And of course, similarly awful weather hasn’t stopped refugees from flooding into Canada, Finland, Norway proper, and other far-northern countries.

So, instead of taking a chance on illegally sneaking into the US or Germany, why aren’t Afghan asylum-seekers flooding to Svalbard where they’ll never have to worry about being deported? Oh right, not enough of a native Norwegian population off of whom they can sponge welfare.

In contrast, anti-transphobic cheese is guaranteed to be from livestock who identify as female.

Nah, if you milk a male cow, the protein content in the “milk” is probably too high to produce good cheese.

(In all seriousness, bull semen sells for higher prices than cheese on a pound-per-pound basis. Another example of bovine discrimination!)

Somewhat related: a major national newspaper says, in an editorial

On a different note, it is imperative to mention here that illegal immigrants are a pain in the neck in this country. … Illegal migrants and criminals must stay away.

I guess Africans are allowed to say that.

http://www.dailynews.co.tz/index.php/editorial/54502-foreigners-do-not-deserve-tanzanian-identity-cards

OT: San Francisco actually managed to convict a murderous illegal alien
http://lompocrecord.com/news/state-and-regional/jury-finds-man-guilty-in-san-francisco-quintuple-homicide/article_570643ae-1e8c-55b0-bf7a-9dc081197f60.html

1. Government-created problem (birth tourism abuse, terrorism, etc.)
2. Has blindingly obvious solution which the media deems Beyond the Pale
3. US government implements second-best privacy-invading Rube Goldberg deterrent instead (global taxation, TSA fondlings, NSA eavesdropping, etc.)
4. And enforces it only against real Americans, not against foreign crooks and terrorists

They might be quite wealthy back home, but in US the system sees them as indigents

Bingo. Google “pre-immigration trust” for an example of how they do this legally, and a convenient list of amoral tax lawyers who help them do it.

Not only do international students not receive any aid at the undergrad level (they only get aid if grad students), but the 700,000 Chinese students in the US as undergrads are paying full price

You’re talking about F visa holders. Beckow’s presumably talking about dependent children of legal immigrants, who indeed get in-state tuition, in-state admissions preferences (e.g. Texas Top 10, etc.) and even financial aid if they are poor enough – or can contrive to appear so for FAFSA purposes. (Not so common among EB-1/2 green carders who usually need to work for a living, but extremely common among EB-5s laundering ill-gotten gains out of China.)

Dependent non-citizen children of non-immigrant visa holders (H-1B, etc.) are in an intermediate position; some states will give them in-state tuition, others won’t. (IIRC, California’s in the “will” category”, while Michigan’s one of the “won’t” states.)

and delaying the much-needed collapse of US SJW Universities.

International students rarely engage with that stuff either way. They don’t participate in it, but they don’t stand in its way unless it’s directly impacting them (“hey hey this is a library!”). And kids of immigrants are a whole ‘nother story.

First, thanks for the book recommendation.

Many don’t take those back who have criminal records. China won’t take back the elderly because China uses the USA as their pension system. Mexico uses us as their trash can
Many countries don’t take their criminal nationals back. Mexico and China are among the worst offenders

And don’t forget Vietnam. Just last month I read about a Vietnamese guy who murdered a whole family in San Francisco. (I was shocked that a Bay Area jury actually convicted the guy.) Turns out he should have been deported ten years ago because of his last convictions, but instead Bush signed an agreement with the Vietnamese saying they didn’t have to take back criminals and illegals who arrived before 1995. So he stayed.

http://lompocrecord.com/news/state-and-regional/jury-finds-man-guilty-in-san-francisco-quintuple-homicide/article_570643ae-1e8c-55b0-bf7a-9dc081197f60.html

Jean Montrevil came to the United States legally with a green card. He and 12 siblings arrived from Haiti in 1986, after his U.S. citizen dad sponsored them.

Fun fact: the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 would have automatically given US citizenship to Jean Montrevil if he were just a few years younger. See 8 USC 1431. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1431

The CCA was sold to the public as “cutting red tape for American parents adopting babies from overseas”. In reality it handed out citizenship like candy to a bunch of random bastards and stepchildren who’d been left behind in the old country while dad abandoned them to immigrate to America.

Instead of making the kids go through the usual niceties of the naturalization process like living here for five years, learning English, and demonstrating attachment to the good order of the country, they got citizenship automatically by virtue of living in the US for one day with their “American” dad, even if dad himself only got his American citizenship that year. The Magic Dirt and the fiat of Congress instantly transformed them into Good Americans. Isn’t legal immigration so heartwarming?

In simpler terms: for every Jean Montrevil they’re trying to deport, there’s plenty more younger and wilder versions of him who are undeportable because a Republican Congress and Clinton conspired to make them into “citizens” automatically.

It’s not just Vietnam “not wanting” to take back their nationals — Dubya’s State Department signed an agreement giving Vietnam the power to refuse to take them back:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170202205758/https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/108921.pdf

But hey, look on the bright side! Thanks to the retention of all that Vietnamese Vibrancy, we got proof that California juries actually are willing to convict immigrant criminals, if they kill five people instead of just one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Ingleside,_San_Francisco_homicide

Dubya signed plenty of obscure anti-American executive agreements while he was in office. Another infamous one was the Social Security agreement with Mexico. (At least Congress refused to approve that one.)

I have my doubts. If the Koreans were especially nationalistic, they would defend all their borders not just the northern one, and they would defend their public sphere.

Instead they let a million foreigners into their country in a decade, among then hundreds of thousands of Chinese who are an obvious threat to independence, plus tens of thousands of Muslims who have consummately demonstrated their lack of aptitude at modern civilization-building in their homelands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people_in_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreigners_in_Korea#Statistics

And their cinemas show blatant propaganda encouraging impressionable young women to mate with those Muslim migrants while portraying local men as jobless losers and abusive bosses
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2009/06/141_47069.html

South Korea’s not as far gone as Western Europe, but judging from what I can see ten thousand miles away, they’re on the same trajectory and their elites are 110% committed to catching up.

Ishaan Tharoor, who has a twin brother, is a Yale graduate who grew up in New York, the son of a career United Nations bureaucrat. His father, who is Indian, made a bid for UN Secretary General, failed, and returned home to India to pursue a career as a politician.

One of the lesser-known bits of silliness in the US immigration system: automatic green cards for family members of career UN bureaucrats in New York

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_27_I

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green-card/green-card-international-organization-employees

I am strongly tempted to expect that this is a troll account. His last name is “Tribe”

Reality is weirder than fiction. He’s a Harvard law prof. His brother was a Zen Buddhist teacher in the Bay Area.

Even better: his dad’s name is George Israel Tribe.

In contrast, there are no longer laws determining who is black and who is white in America, only vague regulatory guidelines.

Sheila Jackson-Lee has tried a few times to get a tighter definition of “minority-owned business” written into law: at least 51% owned by people who are at least 25% Asian Indian, Asian Pacific, Black, Hispanic, or native American, with detailed definitions of who counts as each. (Amusingly enough, a bunch of groups get left out in the cold by her definitions: Brazilians, Burmese, and Bhutanese, for example.)

I remembered the bill when I read it the first time because of the odd phrase “true-born Hispanic heritage”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/70/text#H65AB0AA2F15F45C5AD34965A61BD1941

Somewhat on topic: very strange anecdote from the State Department guy who handled all the problems related to the Black Hebrew Israelites and the Israeli attempts to deport them and stop more of them from coming

https://adst.org/2017/02/american-israeli-tensions-black-hebrew-community/

Newspapers love to portray “felony murder rule” cases as some sort of awful miscarriage of justice. Riles up the bleeding hearts. (Surprised to see the Daily Mail taking that angle, though.)

I for one think it’s a very good legal tradition, worth preserving.

In the long term, maybe. In the short term, right now lots of non-Western universities have affirmative action of their own for international students, to boost their US News & World Report & Times Higher Education rankings (since the rankings started to place more weight on “proportion of international students” as a proxy for quality of education), and it’s really not good for their brand names.

According to the NYT Journalism Institute’s homepage, there’s only two routes in:

The next Institute will be held from May 19 to June 3, 2018 for students (including those graduating in December or May) who are members of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

A few years ago, a lady of similar ancestry got in by being a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, says her school’s press release, so I’m guessing that’s how this one (and all the white-looking ones) got in this time around too.

There’s Israelis all over American politics because we do not have the sensible citizenship rules for office holders that have created recent healthy trouble in Australia and New Zealand

We do not have sensible citizenship rules period.

Everyone knows about the anchor baby crap, so I’ll discuss some more obscure points. Since 1795, black letter law has required that naturalized citizens swear an oath renouncing all allegiance to other sovereigns, but Earl Warren’s Supreme Court made sure (e.g. Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967) that absolutely no penalty attaches to voting in a foreign election or even serving in a foreign military after you naturalize. An attempt in 2005 to pass a law criminalizing that behavior didn’t even make it out of committee.

We have another Supreme Court precedent that when an “American” – more precisely, a de facto former American – swears an oath of allegiance to another country, he’s lying (Vance v. Terrazas, 1980. Terrazas was an anchor baby and Vietnam War draft dodger who went down to Mexico and deliberately created legal uncertainty about his US citizenship until he passed draft age, at which point he headed for court to protect his “rights”). To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton invented a $450 State Department fee for honest people who want to overturn the Terrazas presumption that they’re lying, and then John Kerry raised it to $2350.

Meanwhile even so-called “cucked” European countries like Norway and Spain still at least have the balls to tell immigrants that dual citizenship is verboten and if they want to get naturalized, they have to go to their old country’s consulate and actually renounce citizenship. They can’t just swear a false oath out of one side of their mouth the way America lets them do.

Sorry for the wall-of-text reply to a tangential point of yours. This stuff really pisses me off.

Step one for Denmark: make dual citizenship illegal again. For some reason I don’t understand (lobbying by Danes living abroad?), they legalized it four years ago.

For that matter it should be step one for America too.

IIRC, Afroyim only voted, and didn’t run for office himself. But his case and later Terrazas’ case paved the way for others to get elected to foreign parliaments without losing US citizenship, e.g. Moshe Arens and Meir Kahane in Israel in the 70s and 80s, or Diane Lee in Taiwan in the 90s.

And now we’re in $CURRENT_YEAR where the President of Somalia has US citizenship while sitting in office, which is utterly unprecedented in US legal history (the Baltic guys in the 90s like Toomas Ilves and Valdas Adamkus at least did the right thing and renounced US citizenship before running for foreign office) but the media barely makes a peep. Ain’t it great how fast these things move “forward”? Just five years ago, even Obama’s State Department was uncomfortable with the idea of a US citizen being president of a foreign country:

7 FAM 1285 WHAT IS A POLICY-LEVEL POSITION WITH A FOREIGN STATE? (CT:CON-449; 03-25-2013)

Holding a head-of-state, head-of-government, or foreign-minister position may be incompatible with maintaining U.S. citizenship, although the issue has not been expressly decided by the Department. Under international law, as applied in the United States, a foreign head of state, head of government, or a foreign minister (who is not a local national) enjoys absolute immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of U.S. law, a status that some believe to be inconsistent with continued allegiance to the United States. However others have expressed a contrary view.

So Erdogan managed to get 30,000 Syrians onto the voter rolls in like, what, seven years? Amateur. The US government naturalizes that many Pakistanis alone in three years, and more than twice that many Africans every single year:

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table21

Fifth, as my reader Alfa 158 suggests, the U.S. government could easily penalize elites in the sending countries:

If applicants are denied refugee status and their home country refuses to accept them back, stop issuing any visas for that country. Even the elites who don’t want to emigrate here will hate the idea of not being able to send their kids to school in the US, or make the occasional luxury shopping spree trip.

That’s exactly Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It’s been the law since 1952 and it’s still on the books. They just don’t bother enforcing it.

Up through 2016 I think only two countries had ever been designated under that section. Trump designated four more, but he didn’t take on any of the big offenders like Vietnam or Bangladesh (whose undeported criminal citizens committed murders on US soil during the Obama administration), let alone China.

One mildly interesting fact I learned, possibly from a fellow commenter around these parts (I can’t quite remember). The Danes invented a a very useful word for something that has no simple name in English: the habit of certain immigrant groups of sending their kids back to their homeland on extended vacation, to prevent them from assimilating too closely with their “fellow citizens” in the first world. And they’ve passed laws to punish the parents who send their kids on those kinds of trips.

I just wish the name were easier to pronounce. “Genopdragelsesrejser” is a bit of a mouthful for Anglophones.

Back in the days leading up to WWII when American English had a shorter loanword for this phenomenon (“kibei”), we also had laws to address it. We stripped dual citizens of their US citizenship if they resided for too long in their other country of citizenship (e.g. Section 402 of the Nationality Act of 1940, or Section 350 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952). Too bad, people forgot the word and the phenomenon it described, then the law got rewritten by Earl Warren’s court, and then Congress quietly surrendered and took the law off the books in 1978.

My guess is that Mexican lawyers would oppose an outright New Zealand-style ban on foreigners buying real estate. That would force them to give up their very nice side business creating fideocomisos for foreigners who want to buy real estate near borders or the coast.

And no one else in Mexican society can really organize the level of coordination that would be required to tell the lawyers to go screw themselves. (Classic Mancur Olson collective action problem.)

We can’t retaliate by revoking their tourist visas?

Back when we sort of had a country and a representative government, Congress passed Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to do exactly that. The Supremes never bothered rewriting it like other parts of the INA because every subsequent administration ignored that section anyway. Before Trump came along it had only been invoked twice in six decades.

Even Trump is only applying it to foreign government officials instead of to all citizens of the recalcitrant foreign country like the law says. So the US is still letting in “tourists” and “business travelers” without any guarantee that we can send them back if they decide to overstay. The Supremes say we can’t even lock them up for more than 90 days (Zadvydas v. Davis).

As usual, the NYT is telling whoppers. The Goodlatte bill that got defeated in June (H.R. 4760, Securing America’s Future Act), did not “bar[] grandparents”. It just stopped them from getting green cards (i.e. path to citizenship followed by chain migration of all their siblings) or public benefits, or taking jobs from American workers. They could still get a special non-immigrant visa to live here for as long as they like, at their own family’s expense (Section 1101(e)).

Parents being non-quota immigrants is one of the scarier parts of our messed up immigration+welfare system. It’s already bad enough that just 40 quarters of covered earnings in the US, and you get Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare Part A for life. But totalization agreements reduce that to as little as 10 quarters. I.e. grandma comes in age 62, works at minimum wage in the family business for less than three years, and enjoys her US taxpayer-funded retirement. Obama signed a Social Security totalization agreement with Brazil, and there were reports of ongoing negotiations with India. At least we don’t have one with China or Mexico (Dubya signed one with Mexico but never submitted it to Congress). Imagine what would have happened if HRC got elected …

The affidavit of support is a legally enforceable contract now. Clinton’s welfare reform in 1996 made the INS rewrite the old one, which apparently wasn’t enforceable. (Funnily enough, there’s a halfway-decent New York Times article from 1995 about that.)

Immigrants themselves have taken advantage of that. There’s tons of recent cases where an immigrant sued their sponsor to enforce the contract, and won (random examples). In every one I’ve seen, there was a divorce involved, meaning the real motive for the suit was to make the sponsoring ex-husband’s life miserable. If the immigrant just wants money, it’s easier for them to apply for benefits than to sue the sponsor.

The problem is, neither local, state nor federal governments ever bother exercising their explicit statutory authority to sue the sponsor when the immigrant collects benefits. More than a decade ago there was one case where taxpayers sued Los Angeles County to try to force them to do that, but it went nowhere.

Mostly off-topic, besides the fact that one of the authors is a lecturer at a Swedish university: a forthcoming paper in the Brooklyn Law Review

This article explores the contradictions inherent in the substance as well as the word “milk” and examines the legal, political, cultural, and linguistic forces behind the “milk wars” between dairy milk and plant milk advocates in both Europe and the United States. It examines the US-based battle over the word “milk” through the lens of letters and citizen petitions to the FDA, class action lawsuits, and a 2017 bill called the DAIRY PRIDE Act, as well as the EU-based battle through the lens of EU regulations, a 2017 decision by the European Court of Justice, and a 2014 lawsuit filed by Sweden’s dairy lobby against small-scale oat milk producer Oatly.

This article argues that while plant milk should not be legally prohibited from being called “milk,” it may not be a word worth fighting for given the entanglements of milk with the oppression and exploitation of women, people of color, and nonhuman animals. It explores plant milk’s potential as a “disruptive milk,” one that can break free from the exploitation and oppression long bound up in dairy milk, and argues that an act of verbal activism – replacing the “i” with a “y” to create “mylk” – may present plant milk advocates with an opportunity to reclaim and reinvent the word for the “post milk generation.”

Someone better tell those feminist cheesemakers.

The NYT (and for that matter, the other Cathedral mouthpiece, the Washington Post) is getting increasingly aggressive about blocking archivers. Clearly they want the freedom to be able to memory-hole articles which become inconvenient. What I’ve found:

Internet Archive appears to work at first but then there’s this Javascript redirector that sends you to an error page

archive.is has been blocked from directly crawling NYT for a while. They started using via.hypothes.is but even that route isn’t reliable anymore and it fails to save pages sometimes.

megalodon.jp doesn’t seem to save NYT pages correctly, they only get an excerpt with the first paragraph.

Google Cache works in the short term. archive.is can save Google Cache links sometimes, but gets blocked other times. Bing Cache is more reliable but is a lot slower to update, have to wait until like two or three days after the article gets published.

The most reliable route I’ve found at the moment is to search for the title of the article on Startpage, get the “proxy” link, and then use archive.is to save that link.

But it’s quite lame when he couches it in SJW speak (e.g. American policemen are shooting Negroes!).

This is interesting to me. Russians these days consider such a statement to be modern Western SJW speak, rather than a throwback to the old communist “А у вас негров линчуют” slogans?

Thank you again for your fascinating perspective.

When the US tried setting its Pacific colonies free back in the 80s, one (Northern Marianas) didn’t want to go, and the other three signed treaties giving them financial aid and nearly-unlimited US visas in exchange for letting the US keep its military bases.

But at least back then we had Reagan’s relatively hard-headed State Department dictating the content of the treaties. (Palau dragged out the independence negotiations all the way to the Clinton era, but their treaty followed the basic template set by the earlier two.) So there were at least some limits on the newly “independent” countries’ ability to sell citizenship to Chinese and Indians who wanted in on the unlimited US visas deal. Imagine what today’s rotten State Department would “negotiate”.

Don’t get me wrong, kicking PR out would still be better than the status quo. But probably not by much.

Sorry for sounding like a broken record (I already ranted about this on the other PR thread), but the last time the US tried to cut some colonies loose, we got stuck with Compacts of Free Association where we still had to let their citizens in without limits and even keep on giving them foreign aid if they stayed at home and welfare if they moved to the US.

The only saving grace was that those were little Pacific islands with low five-digit populations, but Hawaii was still spending over a hundred million dollars just on health care for them back in the 2000s until Linda Lingle won that Hail Mary victory in the Ninth Circuit and actually managed to cut back on the bennies.

Too late to give PR “independence” simply b/c anyone descended from the current population can claim US citizenship.

Rogers v. Bellei affirmed that Congress has the power to revoke US citizenship which arises solely from statute. So in theory we can at least make sure that the ones who stayed in Puerto Rico don’t get to keep their US citizenship.

Of course, in practice the current Supreme Court would probably just throw the Bellei precedent out the window and rule that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to everyone on the island, or maybe everyone on the planet, due to mysterious penumbras and emanations visible only to Harvard and Yale Law grads.

We need to divorce PR, but I want a divorce negotiated by a competent divorce lawyer. Instead today’s diplomats and judges would roll over and surrender the house and car and perpetual alimony payments instead.

I meant private schools founded by Asians for Asians.

Soka University of America is probably the closest thing to what you’re thinking of. Founded by a huge Buddhist organization from Japan. Tied for 22nd-best liberal arts college in US News & World Report. But still far too small and uninfluential to be called an “elite university” in the same sense as, say, Brandeis.

From stumbling around on Google & Wikipedia I noticed two other Asian-founded educational institutions (University of the West & Dharma Realm Buddhist University) apparently following the same model of getting funding from a wealthy Buddhist sect in Asia and setting up shop in California where there’s always a steady supply of Asian immigrants.

Everything else I could find was an ESL school, a vocational college, or a blatant visa mill.

One problem is that some countries’ citizenship cannot really be renounced (the UK used to be in that category, and maybe still is).

UK hasn’t been for over a century. See Section 14 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. In fact these days nearly all countries allow for renunciation of citizenship by their overseas citizens, though some will make you finish military service or pay enormous fees first.

You may be thinking of the fact that many countries used to (but largely no longer do) accept that naturalization in the US or some other country automatically terminates the citizenship of the original country. For example in the UK, the 1914 Act recognized that principle (in Section 13) but the British Nationality Act 1948 did not, nor the current (1981) Act.

India and China still adhere to that principle, but many others have abandoned it. (e.g. Mexico in 1998, Denmark in 2014). Incidentally, the U.S. is among the abandoners; see Vance v. Terrazas and 22 CFR 50.40.

So the current position of the UK government is that Mr. Derbyshire remains a British citizen (the term “British subject” is no longer used in the law) until he proactively sends them the red tape to terminate citizenship, and a significant chunk of change to stamp the forms. This recently caused problems for a large number of Australian legislators.

A Jewish co-worker said to me once that the court ruled the way it did so American Jews could be Israelis without losing their American citizenship in case Israel didn’t work out, and others are now benefiting.

Even before the Afroyim case, the U.S. government had a specific policy that Israeli citizenship acquired by aliyah was “involuntary” and thus didn’t trigger the provision of 8 USC 1481(a)(1) stating that you lost citizenship by obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon your own application.

It got to the point that in 2012, a guy who made aliyah and DIDN’T want to keep his U.S. citizenship had to sue the feds twice to get them off his back

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120612170

Though the Wikipedia page, as well as the archived Wikipedia page from a few days ago before the update, is perhaps more convenient.

The diff of the edit which updated the 2019 rankings to the 2020 forecast is probably the easiest way to compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita&type=revision&diff=983465936&oldid=982705335

Anyway, after some edit warring, the Wikipedia page is back to using the 2019 rankings again.

But doesn’t the US cancel your citizenship if you deliberately take on another one?

Like so much of the America that people remember from the 1950s, not anymore.

In 1940 Congress drew up a list of actions which, if you did any of them, then the State Department could cancel your citizenship: foreign military service, foreign naturalization, foreign oath of allegiance, etc. In the 1960s the Supremes started striking items off the list (see e.g. Afroyim v. Rusk), and then in 1980 (Vance v. Terrazas) they invented the concept of “specific intent” to give up citizenship and said that State had to investigate every case and consider all the evidence: not just evidence that the person did one of those actions, but their whole mental attitude towards US citizenship.

Back then, most Americans who’d moved abroad and applied to naturalize in another country (usually Canada or Australia) still thought loss of citizenship was automatic anyway. So even if State didn’t investigate, they assumed they were no longer US citizens, and if they got a letter from State they didn’t fight it. But enough sued the State Department that it started to cost them too much employee time, so in 1990 they quietly adopted the policy of refusing to investigate “specific intent”, except when a person shows up at a consulate and demands an investigation of their own “specific intent”. That effectively ended enforcement of any prohibition against dual citizenship.

Anyone have an idea how much of the Pacific Islander homelessness in Hawaii is actual Hawaiians, and how much is Compact of Free Association “unlimited visas for Micronesians” types who should be deported as public charges (but mysteriously it never happens)?

These were people who were rural and illiterate and transitioning to urban life was hard for them. It made no sense to put them in Minneapolis

Yeah, the French resettled their Hmong refugees in the jungles of French Guiana, which seems to have worked out somewhat better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3498056.stm

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/laos-french-guiana-story-hmong-191201752.html

Yes, BUT they don’t know WHAT you are buying.

For now.

On the backend Visa & Mastercard already have all the infrastructure for receiving the information about what you’re buying. It’s one of the pieces of data that a business has to send to qualify for Level 3 Credit Card Processing, which is already very widespread in business-to-business transactions. In exchange for all the extra data, the credit card company shaves a few tenths of a percent off the interchange rates (the fee they charge the merchant for processing the credit card).

Dunno when it’ll start showing up in business-to-consumer transactions but I won’t be surprised when it happens.