U.S. Residents Run for Mexican Congress
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> June 15, 2003, 1:34 PM EDT
<snips>
> http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-immigrants-mexican-election,0,6974942.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
>
>
> So now we are going to have American citizens running for office in Mexico?
I think it's only fair. Since Mexico has been trying to have so much
influence on our own internal politics, we might as well try to have
influence on Mexico's internal politics.
Professor White
But who's interests will be represented ...?
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Uncle Cato
"We"? I assume you are being sarcastic.
It's a blatant reconquesta strategem.
These people will represent mexican interests, will be baited,
enriched, and controlled, by their gov. They will travel around to our
local governents and institutions within their "district", attempting
to establish avenues of authority. They will personally insert
themselves into every american debate involving immigration and
illegals, claiming themselves as gov representatives, with the same
authority and gravitas as a US Congressman at the table. Further, the
movement lends weight to pursuit of formal assertions of mexican
soveriegnty within regions of the US. Which must be the ultimate goal
of the mexican government. That would be just a daydream, but they
obviously see that they have gained things from the US so far that
were once unthinkable, and with little particular effort of their
part. Why would your historic enemy just give you this great
gravy-train of money, and a priceless foothold within their heartland?
Either they are gone insane, or they are tired of living. I suspect
that they, and much of the rest of the world, thinks that we are gone
insane, but keep a certain trepedation that it is temporary, that the
drugs will wear off and we will come to our senses.
One thing is for certain about mexican policies and wishes: They are
practically incapable subtlety and clever tacticality. Everything is
always very blatant; insulting and in-the-face of the people they are
targeting. You would think this would make their plans very easy to
foil, and normally, it would. In war, they would be trivially
defeated, broadcasting and behaving as they do. Goes to show how
brain-damaged the american politic really is. The people who should be
protecting us will do nothing, because taking the predations of a
country such as Mexico seriously is beneath us, grist for humor. When
elements of mexican soveriegnty become a fact of life, they will then
say that we ought grant them that formal role, as a practical matter.
Just as people now want to legalize illegals and give them the rights
of the citizenry - as a practical matter. America is having a game of
checkers with a retard, and is determined to lose.
Billy Righteous
>checkers with a retard, and is determined to lose.
Speaking of retards Cato ... you've got to be one of the dumber posters here.
Christ.
Face it fools ... pretty soon Norte Baja will be a US state, followed by the
states on the Mexican border. It's inevitable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Americans come in all colors and religions. Bigots and racists are traitors to
the Amercan way.
Don't will your organs to racists! Make those racists and their families die a
slow, horrible death.
kitty
"Uncle Cato" <cata...@usbastards.org> wrote in message
news:9ivrev8shv68sgal1...@4ax.com...
Sounds like a conflict of interest and undoubtedly against the laws of
USA--course laws of USA ??? who cares right ???
Kitty
Graphic Queen
Well, we certainly know that the politicians of this country don't
care about the laws or the Constitution so why in the hell should
anyone else. I say that we should start shooting the illegals as they
come over the border, just like ducks. Maybe then they would start
thinking about those laws they are willing to break.
GQ
Polybius
> It looks like that is what it will take to stop this flood of illegal
> immigrants. You can talk until you are blue in the face, and accomplish
> nothing, but when you start shooting the son of a bitches invading this
> country, people will sit up and take notice.
Johnny---It is a violation of Article I, Section 9, of the U.S.Constitution for an American citizen to hold a foreign political
office without consent of the U.S. Congress.
Bring it on...
americankernel
news:3EF26C99...@Mail2World.com...
I guess it is up folks like us to make sure that we are loud enough to force
some action once there are Americans elected. What's the charge on this?
What's the penalty? Does anyone here know?
--
The American Kernel
http://www.americankernel.com
Polybius
First, I think these would be Mexican politicians should be aware that they are
in violation of the US Constitution---even though ignorance of the law is no
defense.
David Eduardo
"Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
> americankernel wrote:
>
> First, I think these would be Mexican politicians should be aware that
they are
> in violation of the US Constitution---even though ignorance of the law is
no
> defense.
Mexico has created a position to represent the interests of Mexican citizens
living in the US. That person can only be a Mexican citizen, even if they
are a resident of the US.
This is not a US citizen running for Mexican office.
americankernel
news:KAvIa.538$F5.80...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
One article specifically mentioned, by quote from a Mexican official, the
eligibility of American citizens, as they are considered dual citizens. The
article linked below from Newsday, states Mexico thinks they can be dual
citizens. Again, they don't give a damn about our law, or us for that
matter.
Charge 'em. Book 'em. Fine 'em. Sentence 'em. Then deport 'em after
they've served their time. No "Club Fed" memberships allowed.
Polybius
Davo---Go back and read the original news report, according to it, this Mexican
character received amnesty back in the 80's and now intends to run for political
office in Mexico. The other five candidates claim dual citizenship.
Take a peek at Article I, Section 9, of the U.S.Constitution.
I would stay out of this one Davo or the "beeg" boat maybe coming to take you
back to the island...or in your case "de" plane...:o)))))))
Graphic Queen
David, do you read anything before spouting your lies? The article
said the people were American Citizens. What about that don't you
understand anyway? I am damn well sick and tired of you calling anyone
and everyone a liar because you personally don't agree with them. You
are the liar and do nothing but make excuses for Mexicans or
Hispanics, whichever word you prefer.
GQ
Graphic Queen
I am sure that this country thinks it is ok for Mexicans to go against
the Constitution. I mean, we wouldn't want a white person doing such a
thing. They might actually be charged with a crime. But we all know
that Mexicans never do anything wrong.
GQ
Graphic Queen
wrote:
David doesn't read the articles. He just makes excuses for hispanics
breaking American laws. It is ok for them but not for anyone else. Hey
David...get a life boy because there will be tons of those fucking
illegals killed as they cross over. This I can promise you with
certainty.
GQ
Stephen Gallagher
> for an American citizen to hold a foreign political
No it isn't. Are you referring to the section of
Article 1, Section 9 which says the following?
*No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:
*and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them,
*shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
*emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king,
*prince, or foreign state.
That only applies to persons who are within the US
government. Not to all US citizens.
Let's look at this line by line:
*No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:
meaning that the US will not create or grant titles of nobility
*and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them,
*shall, without the consent of the Congress,
meaning that nobody who holds office WITHIN THE US GOVERNMENT
will, without the consent of Congress
*accept of any present,
*emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king,
*prince, or foreign state
accept a gift, take an office, or title, from a foreign country
without the consent of Congress.
If you're referring to a different part of the Constitution,
please cite.
**********
Keep in mind that the Immigration and Nationality act does
provide that a US citizen MAY lose his US citizenship
by taking a policy level position in a foreign government, but
it requires that the person have the intention of giving up his
US citizenship. If there's no intention to give it up, then it is
not lost.
Stephen Gallagher
Stephen Gallagher
> "David Eduardo" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KAvIa.538$F5.80...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EF27ECF...@Mail2World.com...
> > > americankernel wrote:
> > >
> > > First, I think these would be Mexican politicians should be aware that
> they are
> > > in violation of the US Constitution---even though ignorance of the law
> is
> no
> > > defense.
> >
> > Mexico has created a position to represent the interests of Mexican
> citizens
> > living in the US. That person can only be a Mexican citizen, even if they
> > are a resident of the US.
> >
> > This is not a US citizen running for Mexican office.
> >
> >
>
> One article specifically mentioned, by quote from a Mexican official, the
> eligibility of American citizens, as they are considered dual citizens. The
> article linked below from Newsday, states Mexico thinks they can be dual
> citizens. Again, they don't give a damn about our law, or us for that
> matter.
>
americankernel
news:64faa06d.03062...@posting.google.com...
The oath is pretty clear about it...
1) My understanding is that there are several states that ratified the
"missing 13th Amendment" and that most of those that did ratify have laws on
the books mirroring that 1810 Amendment. Enforcement would take research
into each individual state law, and I'd imagine that since almost every
state now has at least one significant and active immigration reform group,
any US Citizen elected to Mexican Congress who resides in a state in which
it is illegal will be prosecuted. As they should.
2) What parts of these excerpts, from Federal code for administering the
oath of citizenship are NOT violated by serving in a foreign Congress?:
a) "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce
and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or
citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
b) "Obligations of oath. A petitioner or applicant for naturalization
shall, before being naturalized, establish that it is his or her intention,
in good faith, to assume and discharge the obligations of the oath of
allegiance, and that his or her attitude toward the Constitution and laws of
the United States renders him or her capable of fulfilling the obligations
of such oath."
c) "Renunciation of title or order of nobility. A petitioner or
applicant for naturalization who has borne any hereditary title or has been
of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state shall, in addition to
taking the oath of allegiance ... [shall] make under oath or affirmation in
public an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, in the
following form: (1) I further renounce the title of (give title or titles)
which I have heretofore held; or (2) I further renounce the order of
nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged."
Anyone who has obtained citizenship through the naturalization process would
be in violation of their oath if they were to be elected to any foreign
office. It may take enabling legislation, but I'd imagine we could fairly
quickly and easily rescind their citizenship and send them packing. As we
should.
While there are tons of smarmy loopholes, at least at the Federal level, in
which the at least quasi-treasonous act of a US Citizen serving as an
official agent of an alien sovereignty, and there also may be gaps in state
law, it is exceptionally clear that Congressional intent, from the outset,
was to prohibit exactly what Mexico is doing. The first five of the
Federalist Papers are nothing short of a tremendous and complete indictment
of such subversive crap.
The only question is, do we have any leaders with the balls to make this an
issue? If we do, and I think Tancredo is the guy, then I'd expect to see
action to prohibit this, provide severe sanctions against it, and shut the
subverters from Mexico down...and soon.
Polybius
..."them" would be a foreign state, not the United States...because the
United States does not grant titles of nobility...as the first line
says...
Polybius
Take a peek at Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
David Eduardo
"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t246fvogp7dmdaup4...@4ax.com...
According to Mexican press, the US articles are wrong. The one in El
Universal, the paper of record in Mexico, cites the relevant Mexican laws.
David Eduardo
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:11:20 GMT, Polybius <Poly...@Mail2World.com>
> >
> breaking American laws. It is ok for them but not for anyone else. Hey
> David...get a life boy because there will be tons of those fucking
> illegals killed as they cross over. This I can promise you with
> certainty.
I read the factual articles, those in Mexican papers that refer to the
actual laws and requirements.
A dual national can run, but this might cause them to loose, by US law,
their US citizenship. That would be a personal decision.
David Eduardo
"Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
There is a big difference between a US Citizena nd a dual national, who
would have to be described as having citizenship in both nations (unless the
person is a Mexican national but not a Mexican citizen, a difference the US
press generally does not get.)
David Eduardo
> eligibility of American citizens, as they are considered dual citizens.
The
> article linked below from Newsday, states Mexico thinks they can be dual
> citizens. Again, they don't give a damn about our law, or us for that
> matter.
US law, however, provides for the revocation of US citizenship in sucha
case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
Again, there may also be an issue with whether the individuals are Mexican
national or Mexican citizens. They may be nationals, but not citizens,
creating a grey area in US law which does not distinguish between these two
terms as used in other nations.
Graphic Queen
<radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh yeah, the Mexican would never lie.
hahahahahahahaha
Can't you get that head of yours out of the Mexican ass you have it
in?
GQ
Graphic Queen
Bullshit. They are either a damn citizen of the U.S. or they aren't.
Mexicans always want what there isn't.
David Eduardo
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:21:07 GMT, "David Eduardo"
> >
> >case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
> >
> >Again, there may also be an issue with whether the individuals are
Mexican
> >national or Mexican citizens. They may be nationals, but not citizens,
> >creating a grey area in US law which does not distinguish between these
two
> >terms as used in other nations.
> >
> Bullshit. They are either a damn citizen of the U.S. or they aren't.
> Mexicans always want what there isn't.
US law allows for dual citizenship; every US passport discusses this in
terms of obligations to the "other country" while in its territory.
Uncle Cato
Yes, but is a dual national a US Citizen under law? Assuming so, do
they have special priviledges or conditions as duals that are
applicable?
I don't know, but I have no doubts at all that Mexico will try to
challenge US law or regs, and might even encourage such individuals to
run. That seems to be their entire schtick these days - they pursue it
like a mania. US law is dutifully thwarted, or loudly ignored, or
campaigned against using consulate people as unregistered lobbyists.
David Eduardo
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:18:56 GMT, "David Eduardo"
> <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, but is a dual national a US Citizen under law? Assuming so, do
> they have special priviledges or conditions as duals that are
> applicable?
US law allows, as the US passport says, due to conditions of birth,
parentage, etc. the existence of dual nationals. They are both US citizens
and citizens of another nation.
When under US juurisdiction, they are not under the other nation's
protection. When in the other nation, they are subject to all laws, such as
military conscription, that apply to nationals of the other country.
Polybius
To become an American citizen you must renounce foreign citizenship.
Some countries do accept a right of return, like the jewish state, and I
believe the jews take it further than that, but, I don't know the details.
So its a jew thing Davo. :o))))))))))
Stephen Gallagher
>
> The oath is pretty clear about it...
>
> 1) My understanding is that there are several states that ratified the
> "missing 13th Amendment"
"Missing" is the operative word.
> 2) What parts of these excerpts, from Federal code for administering the
> oath of citizenship are NOT violated by serving in a foreign Congress?:
>
First keep in mind that not all persons with dual US/other citzenship
have taken this oath. In particular, people who were born with
both citizenships, persons who naturalized in the US as children,
and persons who obtained another citizenship after their birth in
the US would never have taken this oath. Only people who
naturalize in the US as adults will have taken it.
> a) "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce
> and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
> state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or
> citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
> United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
> will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
>
> b) "Obligations of oath. A petitioner or applicant for naturalization
> shall, before being naturalized, establish that it is his or her intention,
> in good faith, to assume and discharge the obligations of the oath of
> allegiance, and that his or her attitude toward the Constitution and laws of
> the United States renders him or her capable of fulfilling the obligations
> of such oath."
>
> c) "Renunciation of title or order of nobility. A petitioner or
> applicant for naturalization who has borne any hereditary title or has been
> of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state shall, in addition to
> taking the oath of allegiance ... [shall] make under oath or affirmation in
> public an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, in the
> following form: (1) I further renounce the title of (give title or titles)
> which I have heretofore held; or (2) I further renounce the order of
> nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged."
>
Many countries do not view the US oath as having any effect under
their laws. The US can't force another country to stop viewing a person
as being one of their citizens, any more than another country can force
the US to stop viewing a person as a US citizen.
If the US really wanted newly naturalized citizens to no longer possess
their original citizenships, then Congress could pass a law requiring that as
part of the naturalization process, a newly naturalized citizen must
follow up his US naturalization by visiting the officials of his original
country and formally renouncing that country's citizenship under their
laws, and returning with proof that he is no longer a citizen of that
country. To date, Congress has never chosen to enact such a policy,
but they've had many years in which they could have.
When you combine this with the fact that a person who is born with
both US and another citizenship, or a person who acquires another
citizenship after having his US citizenship, is allowed to hold both,
then what Congress really should do is simply eliminate the
renunciatory statement from the naturalization oath all together.
If you don't want to be a dual citizen then you don't have to be one.
Stephen Gallagher
> United States does not grant titles of nobility...as the first line
> says...
No, you're incorrect.
The word "them" refers to the United States.
> > *No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:
> > *and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them,
> > *shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
> > *emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king,
> > *prince, or foreign state.
means that if a person holds a position in the government of
the United States, he is not allowed, without permission of
Congress, to accept a present, pay, office, or title from
another country.
Polybius
> > ..."them" would be a foreign state, not the United States...because the
> > United States does not grant titles of nobility...as the first line
> > says...
>
> No, you're incorrect.
O'Really, O'Riley...that's in your opinion...:o))))))))
Contradicting yourself in mid-sentence is considered poor form to say the
least.
Polybius
A lot of this law was set up in the days of sailing ships, before steam power, and
when the jet plane would have been at best a pipe dream. Then too, our founders
never expected, a mass migration of jews from the Russian empire into the US, and
those Russian jews then acquiring the right of return, or citizenship in a jewish
homeland.
Stephen Gallagher
To be a dual national means that two or more countries
view you as holding their nationality. So, if the laws of
the US say a person is a US citizen, and the laws of another
country say that he is one of their citizens, then he is a
dual national.
> > > Assuming so, do
> > > they have special priviledges or conditions as duals that are
> > > applicable?
A dual national is subject to the responsibilities and receives
all of the privilages that each nationality confers.
> > US law allows, as the US passport says, due to conditions of birth,
> > parentage, etc. the existence of dual nationals. They are both US citizens
> > and citizens of another nation.
> >
> > When under US juurisdiction, they are not under the other nation's
> > protection. When in the other nation, they are subject to all laws, such as
> > military conscription, that apply to nationals of the other country.
>
> To become an American citizen you must renounce foreign citizenship.
But some are American citizens by birth, and they also
receive their non-US citizenship at birth as well. They don't
ever have to renounce foreign citizenship, at least not under
US law.
Others are born as US citizens and they acquire their
non-US citizenship at a later date.
David Eduardo
"Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
> David Eduardo wrote:
>
> > "Uncle Cato" <cata...@usbastards.org> wrote in message
> > news:8107fvk2l3nurkq8c...@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:18:56 GMT, "David Eduardo"
> > > <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, but is a dual national a US Citizen under law? Assuming so, do
> > > they have special priviledges or conditions as duals that are
> > > applicable?
> >
> > US law allows, as the US passport says, due to conditions of birth,
> > parentage, etc. the existence of dual nationals. They are both US
citizens
> > and citizens of another nation.
> >
> > When under US juurisdiction, they are not under the other nation's
> > protection. When in the other nation, they are subject to all laws, such
as
> > military conscription, that apply to nationals of the other country.
>
> To become an American citizen you must renounce foreign citizenship.
Wrong assumption; most duals are a product of birth. In many cases,
parentage, location of birth (child of US citizens born abroad), etc.
qualifies a person as a dual national at birth. My oldest daughter is a dual
Ecuadorian and American citizen, as she3 was born in Ecuador and registered
at the US Embassy as being of American parentage.
> Some countries do accept a right of return, like the jewish state, and I
> believe the jews take it further than that, but, I don't know the details.
>
> So its a jew thing Davo. :o))))))))))
To an anti-Semite, everything is a Jew thing.
Polybius
Davo, some people can't handle the facts, and want their cake and eat it too.
This stuff has only become an issue because of apologists for the jewish state,
and I don't mean New York.
Btw, are you interested in having your daughter run for queen of the head
hunters? A regular Golda Meier (?)...:o))))))))))
Stephen Gallagher
> > their original citizenships, then Congress could pass a law requiring that as
> > part of the naturalization process, a newly naturalized citizen must
> > follow up his US naturalization by visiting the officials of his original
> > country and formally renouncing that country's citizenship under their
> > laws, and returning with proof that he is no longer a citizen of that
> > country. To date, Congress has never chosen to enact such a policy,
> > but they've had many years in which they could have.
> >
> > When you combine this with the fact that a person who is born with
> > both US and another citizenship, or a person who acquires another
> > citizenship after having his US citizenship, is allowed to hold both,
> > then what Congress really should do is simply eliminate the
> > renunciatory statement from the naturalization oath all together.
> > If you don't want to be a dual citizen then you don't have to be one.
>
> A lot of this law was set up in the days of sailing ships, before steam power, and
> when the jet plane would have been at best a pipe dream.
Congress has had a lot of time to change the
naturalization process, if they wished.
> Then too, our founders
> never expected, a mass migration of jews from the Russian empire into the US, and
> those Russian jews then acquiring the right of return, or citizenship in a jewish
> homeland.
Do I detect a hint of anti-semitism here?
Stephen Gallagher
When I know that I"m correct I won't back down.
Stephen Gallagher
> "americankernel" <america...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:YNvIa.38839$Fa6.26591@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > One article specifically mentioned, by quote from a Mexican official, the
> > eligibility of American citizens, as they are considered dual citizens.
> The
> > article linked below from Newsday, states Mexico thinks they can be dual
> > citizens. Again, they don't give a damn about our law, or us for that
> > matter.
>
> US law, however, provides for the revocation of US citizenship in sucha
> case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
No it doesn't. But, since the format of US passports have changed
over the years, perhaps the information in mine is not in the same
place. Can you post whatever you're referencing from the third page
of a US passport?
> Again, there may also be an issue with whether the individuals are Mexican
> national or Mexican citizens. They may be nationals, but not citizens,
> creating a grey area in US law which does not distinguish between these two
> terms as used in other nations.
Actually, there is a difference in US law between a US citizen and a
US national, (all US citizens are also US nationals, but there are some
US nationals that are not US citizens). This is not, however, the same
definition that Mexico uses to distinguish their nationals and citizens.
Stephen Gallagher
Stephen Gallagher
> >> eligibility of American citizens, as they are considered dual citizens.
> The
> >> article linked below from Newsday, states Mexico thinks they can be dual
> >> citizens. Again, they don't give a damn about our law, or us for that
> >> matter.
> >
> >US law, however, provides for the revocation of US citizenship in sucha
> >case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
> >
> >Again, there may also be an issue with whether the individuals are Mexican
> >national or Mexican citizens. They may be nationals, but not citizens,
> >creating a grey area in US law which does not distinguish between these two
> >terms as used in other nations.
> >
Each country determines who is and who is not one of their citizens.
When the laws of two or more countries say that the same person is
a citizen of each country, then he's a citizen of each country, in other
words, he has dual citizenship.
For example, if the British government were to pass a law tomorrow
saying that everyone born in the state of Kansas was a British citizen,
then they would be British citizens. Since birth in Kansas also confers
US citizenship, those people would also be US citizens.
Stephen Gallagher
Stephen Gallagher
> O'Really, O'Riley...that's in your opinion...:o))))))))
It seems that it's also the opinion of the person who recommended
that it be put in the Constitution to begin with. In the records of the
Constitutional Convention, at the following website:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_8s6.html
It explains that the reason for that clause's creation was to keep
people in the US government independent of external influence,
by inserting in the Constitution, after the line
The United States shall not grant any title of nobility"
a clause which said:
"No person holding any office of profit or trust under the U. S. shall
without the consent of the Legislature, accept of any present, emolument,
office or title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State"
The ultimate adopted wording is:
*No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person
*holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the
*Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind
*whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
So, it's clearly evident that the word "them" in the sentence
"And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them.."
is a reference to the United States, not to foreign countries.
A person not in the US government is absolutely free to accept a
present, emolument, office, or title, from a foreign country.
Additionally, in "The Commentaries on the Consitution" by Joseph Story
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_8s15.html
it also indicates that the above clause,
-" puts it out of the power of any officer of the government to wear
borrowed honours"
Stephen Gallagher
David Eduardo
"Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
> Btw, are you interested in having your daughter run for queen of the head
> hunters? A regular Golda Meier (?)...:o))))))))))
She's too busy running hear ad agency and radio station.
David Eduardo
"Stephen Gallagher" <sgall...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:64faa06d.03062...@posting.google.com...
news:<D8JIa.373$4w4.47...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
>
> No it doesn't. But, since the format of US passports have changed
> over the years, perhaps the information in mine is not in the same
> place. Can you post whatever you're referencing from the third page
> of a US passport?
I will place the quote later this weekiend, but I am away form the home I
keep my passport at right now. However, on the same place that a caution
about travel to prohibited nations is printed there is a statement about the
possibility of jeopardizing US Citizenship through certain acts. (Swearing
in to an elective office might require an oath, for example... and
definitely would be conswtrued as working for a foreign government)
Essedntially, it is a less legalistic statement of this:
Loss of citizenship can occur only as the result of a citizen voluntarily
performing an act of expatriation as set forth in the Immigration and
Nationality Act with the intent to relinquish citizenship. Such acts most
frequently performed include the following: - Naturalization in a foreign
state; - Taking an oath or making an affirmation of allegiance to a foreign
state; - Service in the armed forces of a foreign state; - Employment with a
foreign government; or - Taking a formal oath of renunciation of allegiance
before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer.
>
> > Again, there may also be an issue with whether the individuals are
Mexican
> > national or Mexican citizens. They may be nationals, but not citizens,
> > creating a grey area in US law which does not distinguish between these
two
> > terms as used in other nations.
>
> Actually, there is a difference in US law between a US citizen and a
> US national, (all US citizens are also US nationals, but there are some
> US nationals that are not US citizens).
I was not aware of that. Who might be a national but not a citizen in the
US?
> This is not, however, the same
> definition that Mexico uses to distinguish their nationals and citizens.
And this is a key point in understanding this particular incident.
Graphic Queen
hear = her...maybe
David Eduardo
Correct. As mentioned in previous responses to spell flames, I am moderately
dyslexic and can not easily see some of that type of typo, and spell
checking just see them as a different and entirely correct word.
Graphic Queen
<radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m279fvo877fb35ktm...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:16:05 GMT, "David Eduardo"
>> <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3EF42C33...@Mail2World.com...
>> >
>> >> Btw, are you interested in having your daughter run for queen of the
>head
>> >> hunters? A regular Golda Meier (?)...:o))))))))))
>> >
>> >She's too busy running hear ad agency and radio station.
>> >
>> hear = her...maybe
>
>Correct. As mentioned in previous responses to spell flames, I am moderately
>dyslexic and can not easily see some of that type of typo, and spell
>checking just see them as a different and entirely correct word.
>
>
I don't have a problem with typos or anything. I was helping you out
is all. I make enough typos myself and see it as no big deal. It seems
to me that Billy Bubba is the only one as of late that uses this when
he has nothing left to debate.
GQ
David Eduardo
Understood. It's getting hard to tell the flames from the suggestions and
clarifications.
Graphic Queen
<radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:o099fv4po9v6kjjev...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:20:12 GMT, "David Eduardo"
>> <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>.
>> >
>> >
>> I don't have a problem with typos or anything. I was helping you out
>> is all. I make enough typos myself and see it as no big deal. It seems
>> to me that Billy Bubba is the only one as of late that uses this when
>> he has nothing left to debate.
>>
>
>Understood. It's getting hard to tell the flames from the suggestions and
>clarifications.
>
No Problem.
Stephen Gallagher
> > > case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
> >
> > No it doesn't. But, since the format of US passports have changed
> > over the years, perhaps the information in mine is not in the same
> > place. Can you post whatever you're referencing from the third page
> > of a US passport?
>
> I will place the quote later this weekiend, but I am away form the home I
> keep my passport at right now. However, on the same place that a caution
> about travel to prohibited nations is printed there is a statement about the
> possibility of jeopardizing US Citizenship through certain acts. (Swearing
> in to an elective office might require an oath, for example... and
> definitely would be conswtrued as working for a foreign government)
>
> Essedntially, it is a less legalistic statement of this:
> Loss of citizenship can occur only as the result of a citizen voluntarily
> performing an act of expatriation as set forth in the Immigration and
> Nationality Act with the intent to relinquish citizenship. Such acts most
> frequently performed include the following: - Naturalization in a foreign
> state; - Taking an oath or making an affirmation of allegiance to a foreign
> state; - Service in the armed forces of a foreign state; - Employment with a
> foreign government; or - Taking a formal oath of renunciation of allegiance
> before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer.
True. But keep in mind that the intent to relinquish citizenship is
very important, without that intent, citizenship is not lost.
(snip)
> >
> > Actually, there is a difference in US law between a US citizen and a
> > US national, (all US citizens are also US nationals, but there are some
> > US nationals that are not US citizens).
>
> I was not aware of that. Who might be a national but not a citizen in the
> US?
The Immigration and Nationality act says that people born in an
"outlying possession" of the US are nationals, but not citizens, of the US.
An example of an outlying possession would be American Samoa.
As far as I understand, people born in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands,
and Guam are considered US citizens, by the way. US nationals,
can move to the US and apply to naturalize as full US citizens.
Stephen Gallagher
Polybius
Isn't that what Yogi Berra said...:o))))))))))
Polybius
No, not a hint of it on my part. I'm way past being an anti-semite...I think jews
should have their own planet.
What do you think of a religious cult, comprising 2% of the population, having the
political, media and financial power of the United States concentrated in their hands?
Take a peek at Johnny's 1940 Nationality Act post to this newsgroup.
Polybius
> > > > US law, however, provides for the revocation of US citizenship in sucha
> > > > case. Read the third page of your passport, if you have one.
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. But, since the format of US passports have changed
> > > over the years, perhaps the information in mine is not in the same
> > > place. Can you post whatever you're referencing from the third page
> > > of a US passport?
> >
> > I will place the quote later this weekiend, but I am away form the home I
> > keep my passport at right now. However, on the same place that a caution
> > about travel to prohibited nations is printed there is a statement about the
> > possibility of jeopardizing US Citizenship through certain acts. (Swearing
> > in to an elective office might require an oath, for example... and
> > definitely would be conswtrued as working for a foreign government)
> >
> > Essedntially, it is a less legalistic statement of this:
> > Loss of citizenship can occur only as the result of a citizen voluntarily
> > performing an act of expatriation as set forth in the Immigration and
> > Nationality Act with the intent to relinquish citizenship. Such acts most
> > frequently performed include the following: - Naturalization in a foreign
> > state; - Taking an oath or making an affirmation of allegiance to a foreign
> > state; - Service in the armed forces of a foreign state; - Employment with a
> > foreign government; or - Taking a formal oath of renunciation of allegiance
> > before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer.
>
> True. But keep in mind that the intent to relinquish citizenship is
> very important, without that intent, citizenship is not lost.
That's iffy...
Stephen Gallagher
> > > keep my passport at right now. However, on the same place that a caution
> > > about travel to prohibited nations is printed there is a statement about the
> > > possibility of jeopardizing US Citizenship through certain acts. (Swearing
> > > in to an elective office might require an oath, for example... and
> > > definitely would be conswtrued as working for a foreign government)
> > >
> > > Essedntially, it is a less legalistic statement of this:
> > > Loss of citizenship can occur only as the result of a citizen voluntarily
> > > performing an act of expatriation as set forth in the Immigration and
> > > Nationality Act with the intent to relinquish citizenship. Such acts most
> > > frequently performed include the following: - Naturalization in a foreign
> > > state; - Taking an oath or making an affirmation of allegiance to a foreign
> > > state; - Service in the armed forces of a foreign state; - Employment with a
> > > foreign government; or - Taking a formal oath of renunciation of allegiance
> > > before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer.
> >
> > True. But keep in mind that the intent to relinquish citizenship is
> > very important, without that intent, citizenship is not lost.
>
> That's iffy...
>
Iffy.. Hmm. Well, the part of the Immigration and Nationality
Act that deals with loss of citizenship says:
"A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or
naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any
of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States
nationality "
Notice the last eight words
"with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality"
There's nothing iffy about it.
David Eduardo
"Stephen Gallagher" <sgall...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:64faa06d.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
> The Immigration and Nationality act says that people born in an
> "outlying possession" of the US are nationals, but not citizens, of the
US.
> An example of an outlying possession would be American Samoa.
> As far as I understand, people born in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands,
> and Guam are considered US citizens, by the way.
Yes, they are. Puerto Ricans (my living family being all Puerto Rican, so I
have some knowledge) are citizens, carry nonrestrictive US passports, and
can move freely within the contry, and register to vote in the 50 states as
soon as residency requirements are met.
> US nationals,
> can move to the US and apply to naturalize as full US citizens.
That would be Samoans, etc., right?
Polybius
You didn't know the gun was loaded...:o)))))))