Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Such an amendment is being introduced for really selfish purposes. Supposedly, "The Governator" wants to run for president sometime in the future. Well, I think tough luck!
Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
"....bigmouth strikes again, and I've got no right to take my place with the human race...."<p>SCJP 1.4
Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
Why touch luck?
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
and try to protect and preserve the constitution.
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
As I understand it, this is unnecessary; such children are already considered natural-born citizens. Generally, if you're born on US soil of of US parents, you're a natural-born citizen. Here is more info.
[ February 24, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
First of all, among all the issues facing the US is this the most important one?
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
It would take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution. Is the personal ambition of some immigrant more important than say.. preserving the sanctity of marriage (which,by the way,is a practise followed by most citizens and immigrants alike)?
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
But I like the US Constitution more than him.. and so should he. He should set aside his personal ambitions and try to protect and preserve the constitution.
Some things are best left the way they are... IMHO
Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born.
Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
But I feel strongly that when we (the US) accept someone as a citizen, that should be a full citizenship, with no subsequent legal restrictions on naturalized citizens compared to natural-born citizens.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
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;
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Yes, but it doesn't always work the other way around. Some countries require you to go to the consulate and turn over your passport and sign a document to renounce your citizenship.Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Isn't that sufficient to renounce citizenship in other countries? I know that if a US citizen takes such an oath for another country, they are recognized as having renounced their US citizenship.
Where one country requires a citizen to renounce the citizenship of another country, this renunciation may or may not be recognized by the other country. This can sometimes lead to sticky legal situations. Also, countries which require such renunciations differ in how seriously they treat this requirement. In some cases (such as Singapore), an applicant for naturalization may be required by his new country to go to an embassy or consulate of his old country and renounce his old citizenship in a manner prescribed by his old country's laws. Other countries (such as the US in recent years) may treat their own naturalization oaths' renunciatory language as essentially meaningless and take no steps to enforce it at all.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister