yes, the very word "many". I have written two Doctoral theses in my life I am not inclined to write one for your benefit.
lets take one example only... http://www.phoenix.gov/ECONDEV/consulat.html >From WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Consul This doesn't cover all levels but enough so you can see a small part of the complexities involved. There are many levels and many types. After WWII in order to accomplish Marshall plan goals MANY consuls from MANY European nations were sent to the US to facilitate interactions with many different industries and many general businesses. My father was the Consul to the Automotive industry and placed in Toledo, Ohio for obvious reasons.... machine tools and home to Willys-Overland/Jeep and only a few miles (50-60) from GM/Chevrolet (100% owner of Opel Germany) and Ford. He did not handle diplomatic matters he handled trade and shipping. Many third world nations have "consuls" that are dedicated to trade missions ONLY and while on staff with an embassy or consulate do not have the insulation from the host nations laws (immunity). Consuls of various ranks may have specific legal authority for certain activities, such as notarizing documents. As such, diplomatic personnel with other responsibilities may receive consular Letters patent<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent>(commissions). Aside from those outlined in the Vienna conventions, there are few formal requirements outlining what a consular official must do. For example, for some countries, consular officials may be responsible for the issuance of visas; other countries may limit "consular services" to providing assistance to compatriots, legalization of documents, etc. Nonetheless, consulates proper will be headed by consuls of various ranks, even if such officials have little or no connection with the more limited sense of consular service. Contrary to popular belief, although many of the staff of consulates may be career diplomats they do not generally have diplomatic immunity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity>(unless they are also accredited as such). Immunities and privileges for consuls and accredited staff of consulates – consular immunity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consular_immunity>– are generally limited to actions undertaken in their official capacity and, with respect to the consulate itself, to those required for official duties. In practice, the extension and application of consular privileges and immunities can be subject to wide discrepancies from country to country. Consulates are more numerous than diplomatic missions (e.g. embassies<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy>), since the latter are posted only in a foreign nation's capital (exceptionally even outside the country, in case of a multiple mandate, e.g. a minor power may well accredit a single Ambassador with several neighbouring states of modest relative importance that are not considered important allies), while consular ones are also posted in various cities throughout the country, especially centres of economic activity, or wherever there is a significant population of its citizens (expatriates<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate>) in residence. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there some reason you can't speak specifically? > > > "there are many levels of diplomats and many (even now) >exclusions..." > > Such as? You said your father was a "consul." Are you saying he was > such and did not enjoy diplomatic immunity? > > On Aug 4, 12:25 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am indeed subject to the laws of the us and germany and cr and do > indeed > > file taxes in all three. I also vote in all three. there are many levels > of > > diplomats and many (even now) exclusions as to what and how diplomats may > or > > may not be charged and held to the level of law. It is NOT as cut and dry > as > > you wish it were. > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > LOL! Cherry picking? Have you any intelligent refute other than "well, > > > it used to be different?" You say things were different in US law in > > > the fifties. What was different from current law? Did the law NOT > > > require people born here to be subject to the jurisdiction of US law? > > > Was there no such thing as diplomatic immunity back then? > > > > > On Aug 4, 11:36 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Like I said "cherry picking" > > > > > > from the post: reflects > > > > > > > the laws passed by Congress as of *Jan. 8, 2008*, > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > "Current as of" means that it was valid on that date, not effective > as > > > > > of that date. You're grasping at straws. > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 11:21 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Title 8 of the US Code as currently published by the US > Government > > > > > reflects > > > > > > the laws passed by Congress as of *Jan. 8, 2008*, and *it is this > > > version > > > > > > that is published here*. > > > > > > seems to me it is a little too late to affect me. It is from the > link > > > on > > > > > > your page. found here at "how current....." > > > > > > > > § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth How > Current > > > is > > > > > > This?< > > > > > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HowCurrent.php/?tn=8&fragid=T08F002. > > > .. > > > > > > May 2 07:41:55 2009> > > > > > > > > Liked I said.... you are so correct and all knowing I am going to > > > > > surrender > > > > > > my and my daughters passports passport and tell the Embassy/State > > > Dept. > > > > > that > > > > > > they are interpreting the law as it stood at the time of my birth > > > > > > incorrectly. > > > > > > > > This law is ammended and appended evey couple of years, I do not > have > > > a > > > > > > 1950s' law library here. I do know that I have held a legal US > > > passport > > > > > > since I was two or three years old. If you can't live with it.... > > > > > complain; > > > > > > I'm sure that retroactively changing a law is rather > > > > > commonplace.....NOT!!! > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > TITLE 8 >CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 > > > > > > > > > § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth > > > > > > > > > The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United > States > > > at > > > > > > > birth: > > > > > > > > > (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the > > > > > > > jurisdiction thereof; > > > > > > > > > The above is not a source, Mark. It is US Law. I have > identified it > > > > > > > clearly enough that you can easily find it for yourself. The > part > > > > > > > where is says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is what > > > > > > > excludes the children of diplomats from citizenship by birth on > US > > > > > > > soil. You said your father was the German Consul and that you > were > > > > > > > born in a consular office. Consuls have diplomatic immunity and > are > > > > > > > not subject to the US law, nor are their children. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 10:31 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Like I said Zeb. You and your "sources" know best. I will > indeed > > > > > > > surrender > > > > > > > > my US passport at once. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Since you think Canadian lawyers are morons and don't know > > > > > immigration > > > > > > > > > law, try this: > > > > > > > > http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-na. > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > Birth in the United States > > > > > > > > > > > A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. > > > citizenship, > > > > > > > > > unless the child is born to a foreign government official > who > > > is in > > > > > > > > > the United States as a recognized diplomat. Children born > in > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > > U.S. territories -- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and > Guam > > > -- > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > also acquire U.S. citizenship. For details, see Title 8 of > the > > > U.S. > > > > > > > > > Code, available atwww.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08 > . > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:36 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, laws do change, live with it, I do. The law in > effect at > > > the > > > > > > > time of > > > > > > > > > > birth is the law that decides your status as a citizen. > You > > > are > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > one respect... I was born in the last century. Further, > you > > > are > > > > > the > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > saying I do not qualify.... the US government disagrees > with > > > you. > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > prefer > > > > > > > > > > to believe my passport is genuine, mere possession of a > US > > > > > passport > > > > > > > > > proves > > > > > > > > > > you wrong. What you believe but can not prove is > irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > Dual Nationality > > > > > > > > > > > > The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a > > > citizen > > > > > of > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > countries at the same time. Each country has its own > > > citizenship > > > > > laws > > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by > > > automatic > > > > > > > > > operation > > > > > > > > > > of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a > child > > > > > born in > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a > U.S. > > > > > citizen > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > > > > citizen of the country of birth. > > > > > > > > > > > > A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by > marriage, > > > or a > > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the > citizenship of > > > the > > > > > > > country > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or > require a > > > > > person > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is > > > > > > > automatically > > > > > > > > > > granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. > > > > > citizenship. > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying > for > > > it > > > > > may > > > > > > > lose > > > > > > > > > U.S. > > > > > > > > > > citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law > > > requires > > > > > that > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > person must apply for the foreign citizenship > voluntarily, by > > > > > free > > > > > > > > > choice, > > > > > > > > > > and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. > > > > > > > > > > > > Intent can be shown by the person's statements or > conduct.The > > > > > U.S. > > > > > > > > > > Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but > does > > > not > > > > > > > encourage > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > as a matter of policy because of the problems it may > cause. > > > > > Claims of > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict > with > > > U.S. > > > > > law, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to > assist > > > > > citizens > > > > > > > > > > abroad. The country where a dual national is located > > > generally > > > > > has a > > > > > > > > > > stronger claim to that person's allegiance. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United > > > States > > > > > and > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of > both > > > > > > > countries. > > > > > > > > > > Either country has the right to enforce its laws, > > > particularly if > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual > > > nationals, > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > > use a > > > > > > > > > > U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual > > > > > nationals > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > be required by the foreign country to use its passport to > > > enter > > > > > and > > > > > > > leave > > > > > > > > > > that country. Use of the foreign passport does not > endanger > > > U.S. > > > > > > > > > > citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or > > > > > otherwise > > > > > > > lose > > > > > > > > > > citizenship. > > > > > > > > > > Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained > > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > foreign > > > > > > > > > > country's embassy and consulates in the United States. > > > Americans > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. > > > embassies > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > consulates abroad. > > > > > > > > > > > > I keep quoting US sources and you throw a > canadian/british > > > law > > > > > firms > > > > > > > > > > interpretation at me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Zebnick < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look pal, this is the law. And just coincidentally, IT > > > MAKES > > > > > SENSE. > > > > > > > > > > > You wanna argue that it was different sometime in the > last > > > > > century? > > > > > > > > > > > PROVE IT! Show me where the law used to be that the > > > children of > > > > > > > > > > > foreign diplomats (consuls) were automatically afforded > US > > > > > > > citizenship > > > > > > > > > > > and then show me when it changed. Otherwise your house > of > > > cards > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > still on the ground. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 9:34 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > and your "General Rule was adopted when ?? and it > applies > > > to > > > > > my > > > > > > > US > > > > > > > > > > > > citizenship ?? then I guess the US passport I just > > > renewed in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > emabassy > > > > > > > > > > > > in San Jose is no good.... > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
