Ever since its founding in 1776, the United States of America has been a country built by immigrants. For centuries, people have flocked to Ellis Island, fueled by the “American Dream,” hoping for the chance of freedom and a better life. However, the current administration has made it clear that they don’t believe immigrants should be allowed in the U.S.: from discouraging international students at U.S. universities to the newest ICE policies, anti-immigration legislation just keeps coming. On Dec. 1, Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, which aims to ensure the “sole and exclusive allegiance” of Americans to the U.S.
Senator Moreno was born in Colombia, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen at the age of 18, when he consequently voluntarily renounced his Colombian citizenship. According to Forbes, Moreno believes U.S. nationality is “an honor and a privilege” which should not be shared with other countries. The bill, if passed, would require all dual citizens to renounce either their foreign or their U.S. citizenship within one year. Those who don’t renounce their foreign country would automatically lose their U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, the acquisition of a foreign passport would trigger immediate loss of U.S. nationality. This bill would affect all dual citizens: (1) U.S.-born children with foreign parents, (2) foreign-born children of U.S. parents, (3) individuals who marry and automatically acquire their spouse’s nationality through marriage, and (4) naturalized citizens with their original passport.
But isn’t this unconstitutional? The short answer: yes. According to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, “a U.S. citizen cannot lose citizenship unless he [or she] willingly surrenders it,” requiring a voluntary, affirmative and intentional surrender. Moreno’s bill aims to eliminate one’s U.S. citizenship simply by inaction, directly contradicting the Constitution. While the oath of allegiance to the U.S. for naturalization states that new citizens “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” (“Naturalization Oath”), the oath has no legal ramifications: since 1967 U.S. nationals have been allowed to hold dual citizenship without prosecution. Moreover, the court case Afroyin v. Rusk found that Congress “has no power under the Constitution to strip a citizen of nationality without the citizen’s voluntary renunciation.” The bill is therefore likely to be struck down if it reaches federal court, as it contradicts both the U.S. Constitution and subsequent judicial findings.
However, under an administration passing unprecedented, illegal and unconstitutional policies, who knows. On the first day of Trump’s second term, Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order that aimed to eliminate birthright citizenship for those born of illegal immigrants. On Dec. 5, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this controversial and unconstitutional order early next year, a decision which came as a shock and would previously have been “unthinkable.” Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship in the United States, and since then, it has been a bedrock principle upon which the U.S. is founded, much like immigration. Taking away such an important element of the United States would be, simply, a mistake.
How does this compare to other countries? According to the World Population Review, around 49% of countries allow dual citizenship without specific conditions: Argentina, Canada, France, Pakistan and many more. Certain countries, like the Netherlands, allow dual citizenship only under certain circumstances: spouses of Dutch citizens may be granted citizenship without renouncing their native country, according to the Dutch government. However, other countries, like Indonesia, Iran and Monaco, do not allow dual citizenship under any circumstances, and force naturalized citizens to renounce previous passports before becoming citizens. Some countries, such as India and China, have specific laws applying to the U.S., and they may automatically revoke a person’s citizenship if they become a U.S. citizen.
This bill is therefore not unprecedented on the global stage: many countries don’t allow for dual citizenship, and automatically and involuntarily claim the right to revoke an individual’s citizenship for a variety of reasons. But for the United States, this bill reflects a dangerous turning of the tide. If the U.S. continues to reject immigrants and force dual citizens to pledge “sole allegiance” to the U.S., what does this mean for the cultural, political and economic landscape in the future? A country built and run by immigrants creating policies to discourage immigration and remove foreign nationals from the country is tragically ironic, and will certainly weaken the rich culture the United States is so known for.
By Claire Ewing
