1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

Please OPPOSE S.3283 - Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025. California has the largest population of dual citizens in the United States, including naturalized citizens, U.S.-born children of immigrants, cross-border families, international researchers, military families, and technology and healthcare workers whose nationality status often arises automatically by birth or descent. Any change to expatriation law therefore has disproportionate operational and legal consequences for this state. From a constitutional standpoint: 1. Loss of citizenship without intent - The Supreme Court has held that U.S. citizenship may not be taken absent proof of intent to relinquish nationality (Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967); Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)). S.3283 instead “deems” citizenship relinquished based on foreign nationality or administrative non-compliance, which CONFLICTS DIRECTLY with this doctrine and with 8 U.S.C. §1481. 2. Inaction treated as voluntary expatriation - The bill treats failure to renounce a second nationality within one year as “voluntary relinquishment.” Courts have repeatedly emphasized that expatriation must be VOLUNTARY in fact, not by statutory presumption (Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)). 3. Due process deficiencies - Citizenship is a fundamental legal status. Automatic reclassification without individualized adjudication raises Fifth Amendment procedural due-process concerns (a concerning pattern in this Administration). 4. Equal protection implications - Because dual nationality is strongly correlated with national origin and family lineage, the bill effectively creates unequal citizenship classes, implicating Fifth Amendment equal-protection principles (Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)). 5. Conflict with existing federal policy - The State Department currently recognizes dual nationality as lawful and common. The bill reverses this settled policy framework and introduces legal uncertainty for millions of California residents. These issues indicate that S.3283 would face substantial constitutional vulnerability and implementation risk, particularly in states with large immigrant and binational populations such as California. I urge you to REJECT it.