By Joyce Ann L. Rocamora
MANILA – The Philippine Embassy in Washington DC on Saturday said the United States continues to allow dual citizenship, dispelling rumors that holding one could jeopardize an individual’s American citizenship.
In recent months, claims have circulated online that the US will be imposing new restrictions and demand renunciation amid its intensified immigration crackdown.
“The United States continues to allow dual citizenship, and there have been no changes to this policy,” the embassy said in a statement.
“Don’t let misinformation stop you from becoming a dual citizen. Apply at the Philippine Embassy or Consulates in the United States.”
The statement came as the embassy welcomed 15 new dual citizens at the chancery on Friday. The 15 lost their Philippine citizenship after naturalization as US citizens.
Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship by becoming US naturalized citizens may still apply for dual citizenship.
Those who were born in the United States to at least one Filipino parent are likewise dual Filipino-American citizens at birth and should report their birth to the Philippine Embassy or Consulate.
Dual citizens who voluntarily renounce their Philippine citizenship, however, are no longer allowed to reacquire it through Philippine Republic Act 9225, making voluntary renunciation of Philippine citizenship an irreversible legal action.
A bill to end dual citizenship in the US is pending in the US Senate, but the embassy said it would still go through several stages of lengthy deliberation and “may or may not proceed depending on the decisions of the US Congress.”
In its past clarifications, the Philippine Embassy said previous challenges to dual and multiple citizenship had not materialized.
It noted that as early as 1952, the US Supreme Court has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized by law.”
“A person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not mean that he renounces the other (Kawakita v US, 343 US 717).” (PNA)
