I do opine that it is illegal for an immigrant to be naturalized as an American citizen, and claim to hold dual citizenship. --- try again ... don't be surprised if you get the same result
On Dec 28, 11:53 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
