Citizenship is already weird. My wife and I both being born in the US, we are tri-citizens and our descendants will also have tri-citizenship in perpetuity.
It would have been quad-citizenship if Norway allowed for multiple passports.
It would have been quad-citizenship if Norway allowed for multiple passports.
You can't pass on your US citizenship unless you have lived in the US for N years, with N being 5, IIRC.
> our descendants will also have tri-citizenship in perpetuity
is probably wrong. If the descendants never reside in the US, they won't be able to pass on the citizenship to their own children unless they traveled to the US just to give birth.
I wonder how this interacts with 8 USC 1401(b)? That says:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
United States at birth:
...
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an
Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided,
That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall
not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such
person to tribal or other property;
I suppose that 1401(b) would still be meaningful in the case where someone is born in the United States to an Indian, Eskimo, etc., but is not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for some reason. Then the 14th would not grant them citizenship, but 1401(b) would as long as that did not impair their tribal rights.
That raises the question of when someone can be born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
I realize that "provided that" in common speech more often means "so long as" or "only when", but "provided, that" or "provided: that" in statutory text could be read as simply introducing an additional and slightly indepedendent statutory provision. I think the comma is significant here for encouraging this reading.