When Texans gather around kitchen tables or at community meetings to discuss independence, one question comes up more than any other: “Will we lose our US citizenship and our Social Security if Texas becomes independent?” It’s a legitimate concern that deserves a thorough, fact-based answer. The short answer is no – but the full story reveals just how secure these rights really are.
The Federal Government has spent decades making it nearly impossible for Americans to lose their citizenship involuntarily. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that US citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be stripped away without clear, explicit consent. When it comes to Social Security, millions of Americans already collect their benefits while living abroad. The path forward for an independent Texas is clearer than many realize.
The Iron-Clad Protection of US Citizenship
The foundation of citizenship protection lies in the Fourteenth Amendment and decades of Supreme Court precedent that have made losing US citizenship extraordinarily difficult. The landmark 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk fundamentally changed how citizenship works in America. The Court ruled that Congress cannot take away someone’s citizenship without their “assent” – meaning a clear, voluntary intent to give it up.
Before this decision, the Federal Government routinely stripped citizenship from Americans for various acts, including voting in foreign elections. Beys Afroyim, a naturalized citizen from Poland, had his citizenship revoked simply for voting in an Israeli election. The Supreme Court said this violated the Constitution. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment “was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship.”
The 1980 case Vance v. Terrazas reinforced this protection even further. The Court ruled that the government must prove not only that someone voluntarily performed an act that could lead to loss of citizenship, but also that they specifically intended to give up their US citizenship. As the Court stated, “expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress.”
Legal scholar Peter Spiro summarized the current state of the law: “As a matter of practice, it is now virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it.” The State Department has adopted guidelines that assume Americans do not intend to give up their citizenship unless they explicitly tell US officials that this is their intention.
For Texans concerned about independence, this means that simply voting for Texit, becoming a citizen of an independent Texas, or even taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of Texas would not automatically result in loss of US citizenship. The Federal Government would have to prove that each individual Texan specifically intended to give up their US citizenship permanently.
The Reality of Dual Citizenship
Contrary to what many believe, the United States not only allows but actively accommodates dual citizenship. According to the State Department, “U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality (or nationalities). A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to their U.S. citizenship.”
Currently, over 75 percent of the world’s countries allow dual citizenship, and the US maintains this arrangement with dozens of nations. Americans can become citizens of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Italy, and many other countries without losing their US citizenship. The same principle would apply to Texas.
US dual nationals “owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country,” according to State Department guidance. They must obey the laws of both countries and can be required to use their US passport when entering or leaving the United States. But they retain all the rights and benefits of US citizenship, including Social Security, Medicare, and the right to vote in Federal elections.
The practical reality is that millions of Americans already hold multiple citizenships. Whether through birth, naturalization, or descent, these Americans navigate the responsibilities and enjoy the benefits of multiple national identities. An independent Texas would simply join this well-established system.
Social Security: A Proven System for Americans Abroad
The concern about losing Social Security benefits reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. The Social Security Administration already pays out approximately $6.1 billion annually to over 760,000 beneficiaries living outside the United States. As the SSA clearly states, “Most U.S. citizens can get Social Security benefits while visiting or living outside the U.S.”
For US citizens, there is no time limit on how long someone can live outside the country and continue receiving benefits. They continue indefinitely as long as proof-of-life documents are signed and returned. The only countries where the SSA cannot send payments are North Korea and Cuba, with some additional restrictions for a handful of former Soviet republics.
The requirements are straightforward: if you earned your Social Security benefits by working and paying into the system, you can collect them regardless of where you live. US citizens living in France, Mexico, the Philippines, or anywhere else continue to receive their full benefits. There is no reason to believe that citizens of an independent Texas would be treated any differently.
The taxation of Social Security benefits follows the same pattern. Benefits are subject to US federal income tax regardless of where the recipient lives. Many Americans abroad have discovered the advantages of establishing domicile in states with no income tax – Texas being one of them – to minimize their overall tax burden on retirement benefits.
The Negotiation Framework for Texit
When Scotland held its independence referendum in 2014, citizenship was a central issue in the campaign. The Scottish Government’s proposals provide a useful template for how Texas might approach these questions. Scotland’s plan called for automatic Scottish citizenship for all British citizens living in Scotland at the time of independence, while explicitly allowing dual citizenship.
“Scottish citizenship would be a new, legal status of nationality, but it won’t replace any of the nationalities we already hold,” the Scottish Government explained. “We would still be able to choose to be Scottish and British, or any other nationality that we already hold.”
The Scottish approach recognized that modern independence movements must account for the reality of interconnected lives and relationships. People have family, property, and financial arrangements that span borders. Successful independence requires managing these transitions smoothly, not disrupting them unnecessarily.
Brexit provides another relevant example. Despite the heated rhetoric during the campaign, British citizens did not lose their EU citizenship immediately upon the referendum result. The withdrawal process took years, with extensive negotiations on citizens’ rights. EU citizens living in the UK retained their status during the transition, and various arrangements were made to protect acquired rights.
For Texas, the negotiation framework would likely follow similar patterns. The independence referendum would provide a clear mandate for change, but the actual transition would unfold over time through negotiations between Texas and the United States. These negotiations would address citizenship rights, Social Security benefits, and other practical arrangements.
The leverage in these negotiations strongly favors protecting existing rights. The United States benefits from the taxes paid by US citizens abroad, including Social Security taxes from those still working. Texas contributes far more to the Social Security system than it receives in benefits. The economic incentives align with preserving the status quo for individual citizens while adjusting the governmental relationships.
Historical Precedents and International Norms
The concern about losing citizenship or benefits reflects an outdated understanding of how modern independence works. When the Soviet Union dissolved, millions of people found themselves citizens of new nations without losing rights they had acquired under the previous system. The Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – gained independence without their citizens losing benefits or legal status they had earned.
Even more relevant is the experience of Ireland. Despite gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1922, complex arrangements evolved over time to maintain certain shared rights and benefits. The Common Travel Area allows Irish and British citizens to live and work freely in each other’s countries. Similar arrangements exist for voting rights and social benefits.
The European Union itself demonstrates how citizenship can evolve without loss of existing rights. When countries join the EU, their citizens become EU citizens in addition to their national citizenship. When the UK left the EU, extensive provisions were made to protect the rights of citizens who had acquired them under the previous system.
International law strongly supports the principle that people should not lose rights they have legally acquired simply because political boundaries change. The Vienna Convention on State Succession addresses many of these issues, establishing that new states generally cannot simply revoke rights that individuals had acquired under the predecessor state.
For Social Security specifically, the United States has “totalization agreements” with 30 countries that prevent double taxation and allow workers to combine their work history from multiple countries to qualify for benefits. These agreements ensure that people who work in multiple countries can receive appropriate benefits from each system. An independent Texas would be in a strong position to negotiate a similar arrangement.
The Texas Advantage
Texans bring unique advantages to these negotiations that other independence movements lack. Texas already operates extensive state-level systems that parallel federal programs. The Texas Retirement System manages billions in pension assets. The Texas Department of Banking regulates more than half the banks operating in the state. The Texas Military Department operates as a fully functional military organization.
This existing infrastructure means that Texas independence would not create the administrative vacuum that might justify disrupting individual citizenship or benefit arrangements. Instead, it would primarily involve transferring authority from one level of government to another – from federal to state.
The economic relationships also favor continuity. Texas exports goods to virtually every country in the world, with total annual exports valued between $225 and $285 billion. The state’s economy ranks tenth globally. These economic ties create powerful incentives for all parties to maintain stable, predictable arrangements for individuals caught in the transition.
The sheer number of Texans affected provides another layer of protection. Over 118,000 Texans currently serve in the US military. Millions more have earned Social Security benefits through decades of work. The administrative and political costs of disrupting these arrangements would be enormous, far outweighing any conceivable benefit to the Federal Government.
Practical Implementation
The most likely scenario following a successful Texit referendum would involve a transition period during which current arrangements remain in place while new frameworks are negotiated. This approach protects individuals while allowing governments time to work out the details.
For US citizenship, the strong legal precedents mean that Texans would retain their status unless they specifically chose to renounce it through the formal process. The State Department has made clear that performing expatriating acts – even swearing allegiance to a foreign power – does not automatically result in loss of citizenship without clear evidence of intent to renounce.
For Social Security, the existing infrastructure for paying benefits abroad would simply extend to include Texas. The Social Security Administration already has procedures for verifying eligibility, transferring payments, and handling tax obligations for Americans living overseas. These systems would continue to operate regardless of Texas’s political status.
The negotiation process would likely address several key areas:
Totalization Agreement: A formal agreement preventing double taxation on Social Security contributions and allowing Texans to combine their US and Texas work history for benefit calculations.
Banking and Financial Services: Arrangements to ensure that banks and financial institutions can continue operating across the border without disruption to individual accounts or services.
Tax Treaties: Agreements to prevent double taxation and clarify the tax obligations of individuals with ties to both Texas and the United States.
Travel and Immigration: Procedures for US citizens living in Texas and Texas citizens traveling to the United States, likely following models used with other countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Addressing the Critics
Critics of Texit often raise citizenship and benefits issues as insurmountable obstacles to independence. This reflects either ignorance of how modern citizenship law works or deliberate fear-mongering designed to scare Texans away from considering independence.
The legal reality is that US citizenship has become remarkably secure against involuntary loss. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that citizenship cannot be taken away without clear, voluntary intent to give it up. Simply voting for independence or becoming a citizen of Texas would not meet this standard.
The practical reality is that millions of Americans already live abroad while retaining their citizenship and benefits. The systems for managing these relationships are well-established and routinely handle far more complex situations than Texas independence would create.
The economic reality is that all parties benefit from maintaining these arrangements. The United States collects taxes from its citizens abroad. Texas pays far more into the Social Security system than its residents receive in benefits. The administrative and political costs of disrupting these relationships would far exceed any conceivable benefit.
The Path Forward
For Texans considering independence, the citizenship and benefits question should not be a source of fear but of confidence. The legal framework strongly protects existing rights. The practical systems for managing Americans abroad are well-established. The economic incentives favor continuity over disruption.
This does not mean the transition would be automatic or effortless. Negotiations would be required. Administrative procedures would need adjustment. Some individuals might face temporary uncertainty or inconvenience during the transition period.
But the fundamental structure of American citizenship law, international practice, and economic reality all point toward preserving existing rights while allowing political relationships to evolve. Texans would not face a choice between independence and their retirement security. They would not lose citizenship rights simply for choosing self-government.
The question facing Texans is not whether they can afford to leave the Union, but whether they can afford to stay. Every year of continued membership means continued overtaxation, continued loss of sovereignty, and continued subjection to the failures of the Federal system. The citizenship and benefits issue, properly understood, removes one of the last artificial barriers to seriously considering Texas independence.
Conclusion
The fear that Texans would lose US citizenship or Social Security benefits after independence rests on outdated understanding of citizenship law and ignorance of how modern independence actually works. The Supreme Court has made losing US citizenship extremely difficult, requiring clear, voluntary intent that would not be met by simply voting for or participating in Texas independence.
Dual citizenship is not only allowed but commonplace, with millions of Americans holding multiple nationalities. Social Security benefits continue for US citizens living abroad indefinitely, with well-established systems for managing payments, taxes, and administrative requirements.
The negotiation of Texas independence would likely result in arrangements that protect individual rights while adjusting governmental relationships – following patterns established in other modern independence movements and international law.
Rather than representing an obstacle to independence, the citizenship and benefits question demonstrates the strength of Texas’s position. The legal protections are robust, the practical systems are established, and the economic incentives favor continuity. Texans can pursue independence with confidence that their fundamental rights and earned benefits would be preserved.
The real question is not whether Texans can afford to leave, but whether we can afford to stay in a Union that continues to fail its most productive and self-reliant members. Independence offers the chance to build something better while retaining the security and benefits that Texans have rightfully earned.
