Keith, An alien (to the US) passport may be held by anyone that complies with the issuing countries laws. If the US does not allow it that has to do with the US ONLY.
For instance, I may ONLY use my US passport to enter or leave the US. I may at my discretion use either of my other two as I see fit. In my most recent travel I used my Costa Rican passport to leave Costa Rica, I then used my German passport to enter India, I used my German passport to exit India and my Costa Rican to enter and leave Germany, Then my US passport for the 20 hour layover in (yuck) New York and my Costa Rican Passport to re-enter CR. The only people that had any questions were those in the US about where I came from were those in the US and they quietly accepted my refusal to prove my "stamps" by showing my other passports after a 30 second Phone call. This mans Italian Passport (if he was naturalized) is indeed NOT valid in the US, Neither are my other two... but if he has one it IS valid everywhere else. On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Mark, > > Agreed. It does however have a lot to do with whether one can be a U.S. > citizen, and our law says that an individual who is naturalized as an > American citizen must renounce his citizenship to any other Nation-State of > sovereign, period. No getting around that. So, by example, even though > Italy might accept a former Italian as, "Italian", by law, in the United > States, the individual cannot be an Italian citizen, and it would be > illicit for him to hold an Italian passport, under U.S. law. > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Keith, >> >> What the US requires has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the other >> Government involved accepts and recognizes as legal in dealing with their >> citizens and constitutions. >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Keith In Tampa >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hello Mark, and Happy Holidays! >>> >>> Well, therein lies the conundrum. You are not a good example of what >>> I am referencing, and I am aware of your circumstances. A person who takes >>> an oath in the United States naturalization process is required to renounce >>> his citizenship to any other soverign, and I don't know how you, PlainOl, >>> but especially a United States District Court can get around the plain >>> language of the statute. >>> >>> Here's wishing you a prosperous, amusing, but most importantly a >>> healthy 2012! >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:49 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mark M. Kahle H.* >> * >> * >> * >> * >> >> -- >> 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. > -- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * * * -- 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.
