Posted on 04/17/2018 3:33:47 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Yes it does. The last updated version is 2014.
Nor does the government require this in practice.
It is a pro-forma renounciation only.
Here it is:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of which I have heretofore been subject or citizen, that will support and defend the Constitutional law of the United States of America
Would you underline the part that requires the relinquishment of citizenship please?
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.[1][2]The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
The Afroyim decision opened the way for a wider acceptance of dual (or multiple) citizenship in United States law.[3]
The Bancroft Treaties—a series of agreements between the United States and other nations which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization—were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.
Black's Law Dictionary
The term pro forma is most often used to describe a practice or document that is provided as a courtesy or satisfies minimum requirements, conforms to a norm or doctrine, tends to be performed or is considered a formality.
SCOTUS needs to revisit.
It will take a Constitutional change or a Supreme Court to overrule itself...
Requires Congress to act to which history shows they never will.
Appears that the Oath of Citizenship IS only a act of formality and not binding to the oath taker.
I agree with you that it is doubtful.
I see a second passport as just a travel document or a plan b against corrupt gov’t.
I do think good people can disagree about this and other topics.
Blessings to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.