Talk:Juan Mari Brás

Renunciation
Why would the US consulate have allowed him to renounce his US citizenship if he would then become stateless? If he then had to give up his US passport, how would he have traveled back to Puerto Rico? 219.73.48.124 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We must remember that when the Jones Act was passed, the United States had recognized the existence of "Puerto Rican citizenship" and that only a limited "American" citizenship was granted without consulting the public in general as if they wanted said Citizenship nor with the requirement that the people of Puerto Rico renounce their "Puerto Rican citizenship". Therefore, Mari Brás would not become stateless, he would be a citizen of Puerto Rico, which in definition is a nation (not an independent one, mind you). However, in the event that Puerto Rico became a state of the union of the United States, then the situation would change completely and he will have a problem on his hands unless he applies for citizenship be it U.S. or any other country. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, State Department personnel are not in a position to deny a duly considered and properly executed renunciation based on the person not having another citizenship. There really are only two grounds upon which they can do so, 1) if the person has a tax obligation to the United States that has not been satisfied, or 2) if the person is on US territory and is not covered by special clauses of relevant laws. As Tony the Marine indicates, pursuant to the relevant laws, when Bras renounced US citizenship this did not affect his PR citizenship and he became a non-US citizen permanent PR resident. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because this happened when was possible do international travel from the U.S. to the Dominican Republic with an I.D. and a birth cerificate.

The previous answers are one of the greatest misconceptions on Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican citizenship as the Puerto Rico Supreme Court defined is equivalent to a State Citizenship on any of the 50 States based on the respective State constitution, on the case of Puerto Rico is based on the Puerto Rico Constitution and on the U.S. Constitution and judicial cases resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you still have doubt, about the Puerto Rico citizenship, just read the reference No. 2 of the article, is on Spanish; however you could use an internet translator. --Seablade (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State, 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen born in Puerto Rico and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. In rejecting Plaintiff’s renunciation, the Department notes that Plaintiff demonstrated no intention of renouncing all ties to the United States. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. Plaintiff’s response to the Secretary’s position is to claim a fundamental distinction between United States and Puerto Rican citizenship. The U.S. Department of State position asserts that renunciation of U.S. citizenship must entail renunciation of Puerto Rican citizenship as well. The court does decide to not enter to the merits of the citizenship issue; however the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, "claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States. The court based this decision on the Inmigration and Nationality Act section 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), that provide the term “United States” definition and evince that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States for such purposes.["][<''] --Seablade (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the federal court ruling on Colon v. U.S. Department of State, months after the U.S. State Department accepted his renunciation, Juan Mari Bras was notified, on June 4, 1998, by the U.S Department of State, that they were rescinding their acceptance, and refused to accept Juan Mari Bras renunciation, determining that Mari Brás could not renounce his American citizenship because he did not request another national citizenship, and he was born and remains living and working in Puerto Rico. This, said the federal agency, makes Mari Brás a U.S. citizen. --Seablade (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Colon and Mari Bras attempted (unsuccessfully) to renounce their US citizenship as part of their (thus far rejected) assertion that Puerto Rican citizenship exists (or ought to exist) separately from US citizenship. About the Puerto Rican citizenship, well the Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision is very clear, that is attached to the Puerto Rico Constitution, the case do reference to a lot of U.S Supreme Court decisions about the state citizenship and their rights, that the state citizenship is separate to the U.S. Citizenship, and construed the equivalence of Puerto Rico citizenship and Puerto Rico government autonomy under the federal jurisdiction as equivalent to the State Citizenship of any of the 50 states that is attached to the state respective constitution and to any state government autonomy under the federal jurisdiction. (See also: Citizenship Clause.) Specifying that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. E.g. It also indicate that the U.S. Supreme Court indicate that the right to vote to state positions on the state elections is a state citizenship privilege and no a U.S. Citizenship privileges. The beginning of the Mari Bras Case was the request to have the right to vote on the Puerto Rico elections, without the U.S. Citizenship. --Seablade (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another important point. While the courts have repeatedly stated that ignorance of the law does not excuse its violation, the truth is that when the PR Supreme Court ruled that Mari was entitled to a PR State Department-issued certificate of PR citizenship and to vote in spite of his alleged renunciation of US citizenship, it made no reference, perhaps due to inexcusable lack of knowledge, to a law authored by then Sen. MacClintock and signed a couple of days before by then Gov. Rosselló that required US citizenship in order to vote, which basically invalidates that opinion as soon as the Court is called upon to review the issue.Pr4ever (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Renouncing citizenship and getting deported
This statement is not correct: "Ordinarily, a person holding United States citizenship and who subsequently renounces his citizenship is deported to his country of origin". I have no idea on what basis the source cited claims this, but I suspect it is not a reliable source for purposes of this statement. In peacetime, it is not possible to lose US citizenship while in the US:. You have to be at a consulate outside of the US and file a request for determination of loss of U.S. nationality and give evidence of one of the acts in (such as a renunciation). This is why Mari Brás had to go to Venezuela in the first place. A person who gives up US citizenship has no automatic entitlement to re-enter the US:. I notice that this article does not mention how Mari Brás got back to Puerto Rico from Venezuela ...

Perhaps the captioned statement is supposed to mean "Ordinarily, a person holding United States citizenship and who subsequently renounces his citizenship and later attempts to re-enter the US without a visa or visa waiver is deported to his country of origin". This is almost correct (aside the handwaving about "country of origin") but irrelevant to the situation at hand. If a US citizen renounces citizenship while abroad, returns to the US, and is not deportable anywhere outside of US territory (e.g. he has no other citizenship, and the removal agreement with the last country he was in does not allow the US to deport him there either), then what typically happens is that the renunciant gets a humanitarian parole into the US until another country can be found to accept him. This is what happened with Joel Slater and at one point with Garry Davis (see ), for example. In theory in the past it would also have been possible to hold the person indefinitely in immigration detention, but this is no longer possible since Clark v. Martinez (2005).

There was a similar case back in the 1970s of a guy who renounced US citizenship in Canada, became stateless, snuck back into the US, and worked as a reporter in Florida. He got picked up by the INS; both the Board of Immigration Appeals and a US appeals court ruled that he was deportable, and a Congressman's bill to give him back his citizenship went nowhere. Unfortunately he disappeared from the historical record after that so I'm not too sure what happened to him. I wrote a brief article is here if anyone is interested: Thomas Jolley.

In any case, I'd suggest removing or clarifying the above erroneous statement. quant18 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Brasciudadano.jpg