Dual Citizens in Texas Critical of Effort to Make Them Choose One Nationality

By Samantha Rubin

Reporting Texas

Texans with dual citizenship are decrying the potential effects of a  bill introduced by an Ohio senator that would force Americans who hold citizenship in another country to renounce one nationality or risk being treated as if they gave up their U.S. citizenship. 

The  Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 contends  that U.S. citizenship should be held “exclusively” and that allegiance must be “undivided.” The bill would take effect 180 days after enactment  and create a one-year deadline for existing dual citizens to submit written renunciation paperwork. It is only in the first stage of the legislative process, and critics of the legislation say its chances of passage are slim. 

Legal experts said the proposal is unworkable. 

“There really is no good way to police this,” said Elissa Steglich, who teaches the immigration law clinic at the University of Texas law school. “There’s no actual benefit to the nation for people to relinquish citizenship to other countries.” 

In pushing the bill, Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, argued that dual citizenship can create conflicts of interest and that U.S. citizenship should be held exclusively. Moreno was born in Colombia and moved to the United States when he was 5 years old. When he turned 18, he became a U.S. citizen and renounced his Colombian citizenship. 

Steglich said that banning dual citizenship would require Congress to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

“There is nothing in current U.S. law that prohibits dual citizenship,” Steglich said. “As long as the other country allows it, the United States does not require people to give up their original citizenship.”

Steglich added that the U.S. government has limited authority over foreign citizenship systems and the forced renunciation could, in some cases, raise concerns about statelessness. 

For dual citizens, the debate is not about divided loyalty but about preserving family and cultural ties to other countries.

Teresa Garza, a dual U.S.- Mexico citizen born in McAllen,, said her citizenship status affects nearly every part of her life. Garza lived in Mexico as a child and now lives near the border, traveling frequently to visit family. 

“My health care, dental care and family property are all in Mexico,” Garza said. “I wouldn’t even be able to inherit property if I lost my Mexican citizenship.”

“You’re stripping away part of someone’s legal identity,” she said. 

Maya Alatin, who was born in Tel Aviv and moved to Houston at age 5, became a U.S. citizen about a year ago after a lengthy immigration process. Alatin believes the proposal is not necessary to show loyalty to the United States. 

“When you naturalize, you take an oath of allegiance to the United States,” Alatin said. “That commitment is already required.” 

Alatin said if she were forced to choose, she would not give up her Israeli citizenship even if that meant leaving the United States. 

“My identity doesn’t disappear because I became American,” she said. 

The proposed ban comes as citizenship debates have been intensifying, including renewed efforts to challenge birthright citizenship. 

President Donald Trump last year signed an  executive order aiming  to end automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, according to the White House.

Immigration lawyer Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch said the two issues are legally distinct. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and has been upheld by the Supreme Court for more than a century. 

“The Constitution is very clear,” Lincoln-Goldfinch said. “Birthright citizenship cannot be ended by executive action or ordinary legislation.” 

For example, she said, the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents immigration status.

While Lincoln-Goldfinch said a ban on dual citizenship would not require a constitutional amendment, she said that does not mean it would survive court challenges. 

“Just because something is proposed, doesn’t mean it’s lawful, workable or constitutional,” she said. 

While Steglich and Lincoln-Goldfinch say the bill is unlikely to advance far in Congress, they note that similar proposals have gained political traction in recent years, particularly as debates over citizenship intensify. 

“If it ever becomes real,” Lincoln-Goldfinch said, “we will fight it hard.”