Can any naturalized citizens share recent (past month or so) experiences with CBP arriving at Dulles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

While it is popular to take personal advantage of multiple countries, it defies the definition of citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

Grifters trying to take advantage of multiple countries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

Grifters trying to take advantage of multiple countries

Everything MAGA says is actually projection.

Is that you Elon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for my green card, so I don't even your husband and child's status. I have to believe that they'd be fine, right? Otherwise what hope do people like me have? Not that I'm planning any travel out of the US any time soon...

Maybe it depends on which country they have dual citizenship with. If it's a country that has tussled with Trump over deportations, or tariffs or something else, then they might get a hard time. I know two World Bank employees on diplomatic visas who were returning from Columbia who got their visas revoked, because the Columbia President had protested flights of deportees.

But again, your relatives are US citizens. It would be mind-boggling if they got into trouble at the border!

No, it doesn't matter where you are from. Read the news. Europeans are also being detained.

Green card holders should not travel abroad for the time being. You are risking it.

[Anonymous]

There is one person here who is completely ignorant about how citizenship works and is attempting to impose some of her own ideas of what citizenship should be.
You can be a citizen of several countries, and this is happening more frequently as we live in a globally connected world. You should just stay here, nasty pp, bcs you might not be able to use your hair dryer in another country. That is the level of ignorance that the world does not need so stay here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a naturalized citizen and returned from a work trip in early March. The customs line at Dulles was long but I did not have any issues.

I'm sorry you have to think about this

I'm also a naturalized citizen and was born in South Korea. I had no issues going through IAD from an international trip from western Europe, but I don't know if they would scrutinize people coming in from South American more. It's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

While it is popular to take personal advantage of multiple countries, it defies the definition of citizenship.

You seem to see citizenship as very transactional and about personal benefit. For most dual citizens, it’s about personal, cultural and familial ties. I guess you just don’t get it because you’re not a dual citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

Grifters trying to take advantage of multiple countries

Yes, wealthy foreigners do it all the time. Look at Musk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

While it is popular to take personal advantage of multiple countries, it defies the definition of citizenship.

You seem to see citizenship as very transactional and about personal benefit. For most dual citizens, it’s about personal, cultural and familial ties. I guess you just don’t get it because you’re not a dual citizen.

+1 DH is from the UK. He came here when he was 30. He's now 60. He's spent half his life in the UK and half in the US. Both are home, though lately, he's been talking about leaving the US due to its road to a dictatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP do they have US passports if they are US citizens? That should help a lot.

One thing I am trying to do is memorize a few phone #s in case they take my phone. Have them memorized yours so they can call from wherever they are if needed.

It is scary that these are the times we are in.

Do you mean that it's scary because you feel anxious? Because your evidence that "the times we are in" are scary for people who are rightfully in the U.S. is scant.

There are multiple verified reports of British, German and French citizens spending weeks in detention for NO REASON, given they tried to enter the US with valid visas or visa waivers and were not on any terrorist or do not fly list. Neither ICE nor Border Control have given any excuse for their mistreatment.

Please link verified reports...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/10/british-tourist-detained-us-authorities-10-days-visa-issue

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/german-national-green-card-holder-immigration-detention-fabian-schmidt-rcna196714

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detained-arrested-deported-ice-immigration-trump

You are posting articles that contain incorrect information and misrepresent the facts. It's similar to watching QAnon on YouTube.

Let's start with the first one. British citizen who might have had a B1/B2 visa, business and pleasure and medical visa, or might have entered the U.S. on ESTA, was in the U.S. on false pretense. She was working and by all accounts living in the U.S. The family and her did not adhere to the U.S. labor laws, which is a criminal offense. The visa must match the purpose of her stay in the U.S. In this case, her presence was to work and be more of an au pair or a domestic worker. She broke the law and the family she was staying with broke the law. She exited the U.S. to Canada to game the system and return to the U.S. no doubt bcs she was at the limit of her 90-day stay, which is allowed on ESTA or tourist visa. She was returned to Canada, but Canadians refused to admit her and sent her back to the U.S. At this point, she needs her Embassy to help pay for the cost of traveling back to the U.S. She entered the U.S. illegally. She had no contract for her work, and she was not paid the minimum wage for her work. All are violations of the U.S. law. She is far from a tourist.

Your second case does not offer enough details, and seems to be vague on purpose. There are behaviors that will violate the LPR status and cause inadmissibility to the U.S. There is a hearing and no doubt we will know more when prosecution presents the facts. It is highly unlikely that CBP would detain any LPR holder for no reason. Countries share criminal information and something might have come to light. That is my guess and not any fact.

Your third article presents bunch of cases, and from the first look, it is easy to see that many have violated their status or are trying to enter the U.S. under false pretenses. Clearly pointing out that one visa was revoked. Please note, U.S. visa allows you to request entry into the U.S. from the CBP officers, it does not guarantee entry into the U.S. Entry into the U.S. is at the sole discretion of the CBP. Turkish "students" are notorious for violating their visas, and coming to the U.S. to work due to the economy in Turkey. Iranian student might have had a visa issued wrongly, and without the proper process. Iranians are notorious for changing status in the U.S. once they enter on F1 visa.

Your Lebanese example is associated with Hezbollah, shall we allow entry to people with close connections to Hezbollah?

Foreign students in the U.S. have no freedom of speech, that is not a thing, they are in violation of their purpose in the U.S. The visa is granted for studying, and that is the purpose of their stay in the U.S. now they are engaging in acts that are not in accordance with the terms of their visa, hence violating their status. They, and all those that stop studying and start working at Royal Farms will have their visas revoked and will be deported.
How about you start learning about what visas are for and what is a violation of a U.S. law?
Similar offenses were happening under every single administration, by thousands, yet media was not reporting it.
I can't help but be stunned that you want a person with ties to Hezbollah to enter the U.S. That really takes the cake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP do they have US passports if they are US citizens? That should help a lot.

One thing I am trying to do is memorize a few phone #s in case they take my phone. Have them memorized yours so they can call from wherever they are if needed.

It is scary that these are the times we are in.

Do you mean that it's scary because you feel anxious? Because your evidence that "the times we are in" are scary for people who are rightfully in the U.S. is scant.

There are multiple verified reports of British, German and French citizens spending weeks in detention for NO REASON, given they tried to enter the US with valid visas or visa waivers and were not on any terrorist or do not fly list. Neither ICE nor Border Control have given any excuse for their mistreatment.

Please link verified reports...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/10/british-tourist-detained-us-authorities-10-days-visa-issue

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/german-national-green-card-holder-immigration-detention-fabian-schmidt-rcna196714

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detained-arrested-deported-ice-immigration-trump

You are posting articles that contain incorrect information and misrepresent the facts. It's similar to watching QAnon on YouTube.

Let's start with the first one. British citizen who might have had a B1/B2 visa, business and pleasure and medical visa, or might have entered the U.S. on ESTA, was in the U.S. on false pretense. She was working and by all accounts living in the U.S. The family and her did not adhere to the U.S. labor laws, which is a criminal offense. The visa must match the purpose of her stay in the U.S. In this case, her presence was to work and be more of an au pair or a domestic worker. She broke the law and the family she was staying with broke the law. She exited the U.S. to Canada to game the system and return to the U.S. no doubt bcs she was at the limit of her 90-day stay, which is allowed on ESTA or tourist visa. She was returned to Canada, but Canadians refused to admit her and sent her back to the U.S. At this point, she needs her Embassy to help pay for the cost of traveling back to the U.S. She entered the U.S. illegally. She had no contract for her work, and she was not paid the minimum wage for her work. All are violations of the U.S. law. She is far from a tourist.

Your second case does not offer enough details, and seems to be vague on purpose. There are behaviors that will violate the LPR status and cause inadmissibility to the U.S. There is a hearing and no doubt we will know more when prosecution presents the facts. It is highly unlikely that CBP would detain any LPR holder for no reason. Countries share criminal information and something might have come to light. That is my guess and not any fact.

Your third article presents bunch of cases, and from the first look, it is easy to see that many have violated their status or are trying to enter the U.S. under false pretenses. Clearly pointing out that one visa was revoked. Please note, U.S. visa allows you to request entry into the U.S. from the CBP officers, it does not guarantee entry into the U.S. Entry into the U.S. is at the sole discretion of the CBP. Turkish "students" are notorious for violating their visas, and coming to the U.S. to work due to the economy in Turkey. Iranian student might have had a visa issued wrongly, and without the proper process. Iranians are notorious for changing status in the U.S. once they enter on F1 visa.

Your Lebanese example is associated with Hezbollah, shall we allow entry to people with close connections to Hezbollah?

Foreign students in the U.S. have no freedom of speech, that is not a thing, they are in violation of their purpose in the U.S. The visa is granted for studying, and that is the purpose of their stay in the U.S. now they are engaging in acts that are not in accordance with the terms of their visa, hence violating their status. They, and all those that stop studying and start working at Royal Farms will have their visas revoked and will be deported.
How about you start learning about what visas are for and what is a violation of a U.S. law?
Similar offenses were happening under every single administration, by thousands, yet media was not reporting it.
I can't help but be stunned that you want a person with ties to Hezbollah to enter the U.S. That really takes the cake.

I'm not reading your crap

You should start a podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH came through on Monday night at Dulles no problem. He’s been a citizen for 10 years.

You can only enter the US as a US citizen with a US passport (so if you have dual citizenship and another passport coming back into the US CBP will only accept the US passport to get back in). So not sure why people are asking OP if her naturalized citizen DH has a US passport. If he doesn’t he can’t get back into the US, no matter who is president.

That is not true. If you have a German passport for example of course you could enter and don't need a visa. Plenty of other countries too. I wouldn't advise that especially if you have a US passport but it's simply not true that you can't enter the US with any other passport.

Let me repeat this again: if you are a US citizen AND also a citizen of another country, you must enter the US with a US passport. In your example, the person is a dual US/German citizen and let’s say that person goes to Germany; when that same person flies back to the US, they cannot present their German passport at Dulles to get back in. They just have their US passport with them and use the US passport at CBP to re-enter the US. if this person had simply been a German citizen and not a dual US citizen, then yes that person can use their German passport to enter.

My DH was born in a Western European country and is now a naturalized citizen of the US, and has 2 passports. When he was sworn in as a US citizen, the government immediately takes your green card and hands you a passport application form and clearly tells you that if you now are to leave the US you must have a US passport to re-enter now that you are a US citizen. I was there when my husband got sworn in and heard it myself.

This is actually not uncommon. My DH’s country of origins also requires him to use that country’s passport to enter (if he showed the US one it would scan I guess on their system that he is also a citizen of that country and needs that passport).

So you’re wrong. And it’s a really messy situation to get yourself in if you did this.

I'm not wrong. You just don't know how to express yourself. You should have said you can't travel on two different passports. Which is true and I wouldn't have disputed that. But you can enter the country on a non-us passport.

Seriously? GMAB. Posters asking OP if her husband has a US passport triggers the issue that he absolutely has to have one as a US citizen to enter the US. I was very clear. But you misread, that’s on you. Cheer up. Hope your day gets better and you aren’t so grouchy.

She never asked if he should enter the US with another country's passport. You introduced that concept for no reason. You clarified what you meant later, which is fine, but you absolutely did not state correct facts the first time. You just tried to sound smart by introducing a concept that was not relevant to the discussion at all.

Give it a rest, the other lady was correct.

Eventually 🙄🙄🙄

ROTFL. Go back and re-read the original post from that poster. That other lady was clear and correct from the get go. But DCUM is going to DCUM so your irritability is on brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH came through on Monday night at Dulles no problem. He’s been a citizen for 10 years.

You can only enter the US as a US citizen with a US passport (so if you have dual citizenship and another passport coming back into the US CBP will only accept the US passport to get back in). So not sure why people are asking OP if her naturalized citizen DH has a US passport. If he doesn’t he can’t get back into the US, no matter who is president.

That is not true. If you have a German passport for example of course you could enter and don't need a visa. Plenty of other countries too. I wouldn't advise that especially if you have a US passport but it's simply not true that you can't enter the US with any other passport.

Let me repeat this again: if you are a US citizen AND also a citizen of another country, you must enter the US with a US passport. In your example, the person is a dual US/German citizen and let’s say that person goes to Germany; when that same person flies back to the US, they cannot present their German passport at Dulles to get back in. They just have their US passport with them and use the US passport at CBP to re-enter the US. if this person had simply been a German citizen and not a dual US citizen, then yes that person can use their German passport to enter.

My DH was born in a Western European country and is now a naturalized citizen of the US, and has 2 passports. When he was sworn in as a US citizen, the government immediately takes your green card and hands you a passport application form and clearly tells you that if you now are to leave the US you must have a US passport to re-enter now that you are a US citizen. I was there when my husband got sworn in and heard it myself.

This is actually not uncommon. My DH’s country of origins also requires him to use that country’s passport to enter (if he showed the US one it would scan I guess on their system that he is also a citizen of that country and needs that passport).

So you’re wrong. And it’s a really messy situation to get yourself in if you did this.

I'm not wrong. You just don't know how to express yourself. You should have said you can't travel on two different passports. Which is true and I wouldn't have disputed that. But you can enter the country on a non-us passport.

Seriously? GMAB. Posters asking OP if her husband has a US passport triggers the issue that he absolutely has to have one as a US citizen to enter the US. I was very clear. But you misread, that’s on you. Cheer up. Hope your day gets better and you aren’t so grouchy.

She never asked if he should enter the US with another country's passport. You introduced that concept for no reason. You clarified what you meant later, which is fine, but you absolutely did not state correct facts the first time. You just tried to sound smart by introducing a concept that was not relevant to the discussion at all.

Give it a rest, the other lady was correct.

Eventually 🙄🙄🙄

ROTFL. Go back and re-read the original post from that poster. That other lady was clear and correct from the get go. But DCUM is going to DCUM so your irritability is on brand.

The "other lady" is you? mmkkkaaayyyy Learn how to express your thoughts better in writing and you won't have this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is one person here who is completely ignorant about how citizenship works and is attempting to impose some of her own ideas of what citizenship should be.
You can be a citizen of several countries, and this is happening more frequently as we live in a globally connected world. You should just stay here, nasty pp, bcs you might not be able to use your hair dryer in another country. That is the level of ignorance that the world does not need so stay here.

Actually, the ignorance here is assuming no one understands dual citizenship just because they point out the legal and national security implications of it—especially when it involves countries that don’t recognize it.

Yes, multiple citizenships exist, and many people hold them. But what you’re ignoring is that when someone becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, they take an oath explicitly renouncing allegiance to all other countries. That’s not symbolic—it’s part of the legal process. You stand up, raise your hand, and pledge to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.”

So while the U.S. allows dual citizenship in practice, it doesn’t encourage it. And when the foreign country in question doesn’t even recognize your U.S. citizenship—like China, Iran, or Russia—that’s not just a “global citizen” situation. That’s a serious legal and personal risk.

This has nothing to do with hair dryers or travel comforts. It’s about understanding what you signed up for when you chose to become a U.S. citizen—and whether holding on to other allegiances contradicts that commitment. Global connection is great. But national allegiance still matters—especially when the other country might not respect your rights if things go wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a dual citizen and only uses their US passport and let the other lapse decades ago. Stop trying to game the system just be a US citizen or not, it would be weird if your US passport wasn't stamped because you used your non US passport somewhere else.

See this doesn't actually work for some countries though. The country I'm from won't let me enter unless I have a current passport for that country because to them I can't renounce my citizenship to that country at all. It doesn't exist in their government for me to choose to not be a citizen of their country if I was born there. I can't use my American passport and apply for a visit to be a tourist there, it's simply not an option to them.

Why do people always think the rules that apply to their particular situation apply to the whole world?

You're absolutely right that some countries don't let you renounce citizenship or require you to enter using their passport—but let's be clear: that's not a global norm, and the list of countries that enforce that kind of policy is very specific.

We're talking about places like:
Iran
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
Syria

These are authoritarian regimes or adversaries of the U.S., and frankly, if you're a U.S. citizen and traveling to any of them, I would hope that triggers some level of attention. Not only are they high-risk, but the U.S. State Department often has standing travel advisories warning against even going there.

So yes—if you're from one of those countries, your situation is unique and tightly restricted. But that’s not most people.

The rest of the world—Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, the UK, and dozens more—do not require you to use their passport, and many dual nationals use only their U.S. passport without any issue, especially if they haven’t lived abroad in decades.

So no, people aren’t assuming "their rules apply to the whole world"—they're just following what applies to the vast majority of dual citizens in democratic, allied nations. Your case is the exception, not the standard.

You are incorrect but appear to think you know more than you do. An Australian citizen must enter Australia on an Australian passport. Anybody entering on a non-Australian passport must have a travel authority or visa. Obviously you cannot apply for these if you are already an Australian citizen. But you’ll probably just say Australia is another exception, right?

That’s true—Australia expects its citizens to enter using an Australian passport. But if you’re permanently living in the U.S., why would you bother claiming to be Australian unless you’re moving back or trying to be treated as one there?

You’re a U.S. citizen. You live in the U.S., you travel on your U.S. passport, and that’s entirely valid. There’s no need to maintain or use another nationality unless you’re actively engaging with that country—like living there, voting, or accessing citizen rights.

Unless you’re planning to re-establish yourself in Australia, you have no obligation to present yourself as Australian. Being born there doesn’t mean you’re required to keep that identity active forever. You’re American, and you have every right to just live—and travel—as such.

Nothing to do with being born there. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Sure you can apply renounce Australian citizenship just like you can renounce US citizenship. There’s a legal process to do that. Until then, the law to be followed.

You seem to have a somewhat naive and black and white view of the world. You do realise that MILLIONS of people move back and forth between countries all the time? Maybe they moved to a different country as a child, married someone with a different nationality, studied in a different country and remained. Maybe they just want the option up move back if they choose. Maybe they want their children to have the choice to move there. All valid reasons. You don’t have to choose one lane in life and stay in it forever.

While it is popular to take personal advantage of multiple countries, it defies the definition of citizenship.

You seem to see citizenship as very transactional and about personal benefit. For most dual citizens, it’s about personal, cultural and familial ties. I guess you just don’t get it because you’re not a dual citizen.

+1 DH is from the UK. He came here when he was 30. He's now 60. He's spent half his life in the UK and half in the US. Both are home, though lately, he's been talking about leaving the US due to its road to a dictatorship.

Ok, but where has he actually lived the last 30 years? If it’s been the U.S. this whole time and he became a citizen, why’s he still holding on to UK citizenship?

When you naturalize here, you literally take an oath to renounce all other allegiances. Yeah, the U.S. allows dual citizenship, but the pledge is clear—you’re swearing loyalty to the U.S., not keeping a backup.

If he’s lived here for decades, benefited from being American, but now wants to bounce and still claim another country as “home,” that’s trying to have it both ways. At that point, it’s less about identity and more about convenience.