There are many countries that do not recognize a renunciation of citizenship. Once a citizen, always a citizen regardless of the oath the US requires. That oath only counts within the jurisdiction of US courts.
On Dec 28, 11:02 am, 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 > > > > > > > > > > shall regularly brief Congress regarding the > > application of > > > > the > > > > > > > > authority > > > > > > > > > > described in this section, including the organizations, > > > > > > entities, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > individuals considered to be `covered persons' for > > purposes > > > > of > > > > > > > > subsection > > > > > > > > > > (b)(2). > > > > > > > > > > > SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA > > TERRORISTS. > > ... > > 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.
