"Technically, the US allows for dual citizenship. And yet, we also require immigrants to take a loyalty oath of exclusivity. Getting rid of that condition on immigration seems like a solid squirrel case that's readable in front of judges of all types, to me. For offense, look to criticisms of the notion of "dual loyalty", which is a phrase often used by the xenophobic, and claim the loyalty oath perpetuates such notions. If you want to get even more specific, you could remove a specific sentence from the loyalty oath and leave the rest of it." Why is this plan necessary in the context of the U.S. government? Why is the argument of xenophobia important to the U.S.? How do you know that removing the oath will solve anything? Does the oath bind them by law, or can they ignore it anyways? If it does bind them, what if many people are already ignoring it? Technically: U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. Can you make a strong enough case that the oath trumps what the U.S. clearly stipulates? I would love to use this plan, but I'm not sure how.