There are certain instances where dual citizenship is applicable and in my humble opinion, not illicit. I stand corrected on my original comment.
I do opine that it is illegal for an immigrant to be naturalized as an American citizen, and claim to hold dual citizenship. It is done all the time, as there is no enforcement, (I am involved in a civil matter right now with a guy who purportedly holds Italian and American citizenship.) On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > wrote: > Keep away from Wiki > --- > not zionist enough for you, eh? > I noticed that you didn't challenge the truth about dual citizenships. > > On Dec 28, 11:03 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Keep away from Wiki PlainOl......It's dangerous! > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8 USC § 1448 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1448.html> > > > > > Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is that, as part > of > > > the oath, a new citizen must pledge "to renounce and abjure absolutely > and > > > entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, > > > state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a > subject > > > or citizen." > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM, plainolamerican < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Dual citizenships are illicit, period. (I know, there are many > > >> "Americans" who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless > > >> illegal. > > >> ---- > > >> try again > > >> Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship > > >> (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that > > >> dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a > > >> person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries > > > > >> On Dec 28, 10:32 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Dual citizenships are illicit, period. (I know, there are many > > >> > "Americans" who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless > illegal. > > > > >> > An American citizen is "An American Citizen". Doesn't matter > where he > > >> was > > >> > born. (It is a very narrow window for an American citizen to be > born > > >> in a > > >> > foreign land). > > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, plainolamerican < > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > The > > >> > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the > > >> > > American > > >> > > will. > > >> > > --- > > >> > > oh, so a foreign born US citizen is excluded from the right to a > court > > >> > > review? > > >> > > what about those with dual citizenships? > > > > >> > > On Dec 28, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > > Good Morning PlainOl, > > > > >> > > > Yes, including any American who may be associated with > terrorists. > > >> The > > >> > > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the > > >> American > > >> > > > will. > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, plainolamerican > > >> > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > >> > > > > I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's > > >> review > > >> > > > > --- > > >> > > > > even someone 'associated' with terrorists > > > > >> > > > > On Dec 27, 11:47 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > After study and review, as well as being familiar with the > > >> Supreme > > >> > > Court > > >> > > > > > Decision in *Rumsfeld v. Hamdi*, where the Supremes ruled > that > > >> > > EVERY > > >> > > > > > American is entitled to *habeas corpus* and review of > > >> detainment; > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > > Section 1022, and the phrase which states in part: > > > > >> > > > > > *b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful > Resident > > >> > > Aliens- > > >> > > > > > (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a > > >> person in > > >> > > > > > military custody under this section does not extend to > citizens > > >> of > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > United States.* > > > > >> > > > > > I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's > > >> review, > > >> > > > > > whether he has been caught on the battlefield, or in > downtown > > >> Tampa. > > >> > > > > > This obviously does not apply to foreign enemy combatants, > and > > >> I for > > >> > > one > > >> > > > > > agree that it should not apply to enemy combatants who are > not > > >> > > American. > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM, plainolamerican < > > >> > > > > [email protected] > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > btw - RP's opposition is that the amendment repeals parts > of > > >> the > > >> > > bill > > >> > > > > > > of rights, patriot act, 4th and 5th amendments and even > magna > > >> carta > > >> > > > > > > principles. > > >> > > > > > > Many Americans don't understand the relationship between > > >> local, > > >> > > state, > > >> > > > > > > federal, and military authority. > > >> > > > > > > If thinking that our authorities should have all the > > >> resources they > > >> > > > > > > need to combat terrorism makes me a moonbat then keep > calling > > >> me a > > >> > > > > > > moonbat. > > > > >> > > > > > > On Dec 26, 6:28 am, Keith In Tampa < > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > Just in case you missed it: > > > > >> > > > > > > > *(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful > > >> Resident > > >> > > > > Aliens- > > >> > > > > > > > (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain > a > > >> person > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > > > > military custody under this section does not extend to > > >> citizens > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > United States. > > >> > > > > > > > * > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Keith In Tampa < > > >> > > > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Good Morning. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I am genuinely hoping that you will respond to this > post. > > >> As a > > >> > > > > side > > >> > > > > > > note, > > >> > > > > > > > > last week, we had Crackpots and Moonbats claiming that > > >> this > > >> > > piece > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > legislation, (which is renewed every year since 1961, > > >> with > > >> > > various > > >> > > > > > > > > modifications) was setting up camps to imprison > American > > >> > > > > citizens, > > >> > > > > > > (I > > >> > > > > > > > > assume Ron Paul supporters) until level heads pointed > > >> out to > > >> > > these > > >> > > > > > > > > Moonbats and Crackpots that the legislation didn't say > > >> > > anything of > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > sort. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > What in particular, are you, and others who oppose > this > > >> > > > > legislation, > > >> > > > > > > > > opposed to? Here is the section that you reference, > > >> (which by > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > way, > > >> > > > > > > > > does not say what you claim it says). I suggest that > all > > >> of > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > Moonbats, > > >> > > > > > > > > and all of the Crackpots read the legislation before > they > > >> > > listen to > > >> > > > > > > other > > >> > > > > > > > > Crackpots and Moonbats, and get their proverbial > panties > > >> in a > > >> > > wad: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Subtitle D--Counterterrorism > > > > >> > > > > > > > > SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED > FORCES > > >> OF THE > > >> > > > > UNITED > > >> > > > > > > > > STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE > > >> AUTHORIZATION > > >> > > FOR > > >> > > > > USE > > >> > > > > > > OF > > >> > > > > > > > > MILITARY FORCE. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (a) In General- Congress affirms that the > authority of > > >> the > > >> > > > > President > > >> > > > > > > > > to use all necessary and appropriate force > pursuant to > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > Authorization > > >> > > > > > > > > for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 > > >> U.S.C. 1541 > > >> > > > > note) > > >> > > > > > > includes > > >> > > > > > > > > the authority for the Armed Forces of the United > > >> States to > > >> > > > > detain > > >> > > > > > > covered > > >> > > > > > > > > persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending > > >> disposition > > >> > > under > > >> > > > > > > the law of > > >> > > > > > > > > war. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this > > >> section is > > >> > > any > > >> > > > > > > person > > >> > > > > > > > > as follows: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or > > >> aided > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, > > >> 2001, or > > >> > > > > > > harbored those > > >> > > > > > > > > responsible for those attacks. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (2) A person who was a part of or substantially > > >> supported > > >> > > > > al-Qaeda, > > >> > > > > > > > > the Taliban, or associated forces that are > engaged > > >> in > > >> > > > > > > hostilities against > > >> > > > > > > > > the United States or its coalition partners, > > >> including > > >> > > any > > >> > > > > > > person who has > > >> > > > > > > > > committed a belligerent act or has directly > > >> supported > > >> > > such > > >> > > > > > > hostilities in > > >> > > > > > > > > aid of such enemy forces. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition > of a > > >> > > person > > >> > > > > under > > >> > > > > > > > > the law of war as described in subsection (a) may > > >> include > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > following: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (1) Detention under the law of war without trial > until > > >> the > > >> > > end > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > hostilities authorized by the Authorization for > Use > > >> of > > >> > > > > Military > > >> > > > > > > Force. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United > States > > >> Code > > >> > > (as > > >> > > > > > > > > amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 > > >> (title > > >> > > XVIII > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > Public Law > > >> > > > > > > > > 111-84)). > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or > > >> competent > > >> > > > > tribunal > > >> > > > > > > > > having lawful jurisdiction. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the > person's > > >> > > country > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > origin, any other foreign country, or any other > > >> foreign > > >> > > > > entity. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is > intended > > >> to > > >> > > limit > > >> > > > > or > > >> > > > > > > > > expand the authority of the President or the scope > of > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > Authorization for > > >> > > > > > > > > Use of Military Force. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be > > >> construed > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > > > affect > > >> > > > > > > > > existing law or authorities relating to the > detention > > >> of > > >> > > United > > >> > > > > > > States > > >> > > > > > > > > citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United > States, > > >> or > > >> > > any > > >> > > > > other > > >> > > > > > > persons > > >> > > > > > > > > who are captured or arrested in the United States. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The > > >> Secretary of > > >> > > > > Defense > > > > ... > > > > 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. > -- 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.
