Your story, committed though you may be to it, remains unsubstantiated. You present me your story, I present you the law, you alter your story. You seem to scramble for a place of refuge in your tales international "nationality." But guess what Mark. I don't give a flying fuck. Whatever papers or documents you have, however you got them, doesn't make you an American. NOT one of us. So pay your taxes and pass through boarders any way you can, but know this. You are not now and never will be an American. It is far too difficult to be an American for a self-important wimp like you to handle. Stay in Costa Rica and disavow the rest of the world. We don't have that luxury.
On Aug 4, 9:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > I have not posted one item that is not fact. The problem is you have a > tendancy to pull something apart line by line instead of reading the entire > post as a whole in order to get the intended message. > > Further if you find me lacking in communication skills lets correspond in > your second language, or my mother tongue. My ideas and posts would then, I > assure you, be crystal clear. > > I gave you "comity" when i said that I have three legal passports.... it is > you that sparked the discussion through ignorance as to the ins and outs of > US migration policies and the various levels of diplomacy and disbelief of > my stated fact. > > At the end of the day you have been educated on these matters .... say > thank-you > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >have written two Doctoral theses in my life Iam not inclined to write >one > > for your benefit. > > > If you were as smart as you obviously think you are, you'd understand > > that if you were accurate and honest in your posts, long explanations > > would not be necessary. But you prefer condescension to comity and, > > while it amuses you, others see it as obnoxious. > > > On Aug 4, 1:46 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > yes, the very word "many".there are many levels of > > > diplomats and many (even now) exclusions > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
