Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My Aunt through marriage was a Naturalized Citizen.
Note that as such, she never took the Naturalization Oath.
Quote:
My Uncle was an American Citizen. When she gave birth, my cousin got dual citizenship through her.
Operative word: born. Not Naturalized.
Quote:
My Cousin was a US Citizen by birth, and by his American Dad. They frequently traveled back to Ireland to see her relatives. Even after she was Naturalized, she retained her Irish Passport. She even got an Irish Passport for my cousin. When they were in Ireland, they used their Irish Passports. When they came back to the States, they used their US Passports. Ireland still considered her a citizen by birth, and my cousin through her, despite her being an American citizen through Naturalization. Did you know that in Ireland you can petition for citizenship if a grandparent was born there, even if you and your parents are Americans?
Again, operative concept: born US citizen. Neither were foreign nationals who Naturalized US citizens.
This is why ignoring the US citizenship requirements of both Naturalized former foreign nationals and illegal aliens is problematic. We now have an Administration that is taking steps to correct that. It's about time.
Yes I do. Most Americans welcome immigratuon regardless of caste or creed. The only people opposing it live in areas which receive little to no immigration regardless. Mississippians may be against immigration but immigrants don’t want to movthere anyway, they want to move to move to the metropolitan areas where the jobs are. Maybe if Missippians, West Virginians, and Kentuckyians would get off there asses and move to the major metropolitan areas and becone housekeepers, janitors, and dishwashers. We wouldn’t need immigrants if people left conservative rural areas and moved to the liberal cities and filled these jobs. Until conservatives convince people to move to liberal cities and take dishwashing jobs, they have zero right to complain about immigration and in fact should be celebrating it as all signs point to rural people being too lazy to move to the liberal cities where all the jobs are.
I will say this again: Until rural people leave their unproductive economic areas for the thriving metroploitam areas where all the jobs are, their views on immigration shluldn’t matter as the vast majority pf immigrants migrate to prosperous metropolitam areas that need workers.
So there's not enough Americans living in urban areas to take any jobs for a fair wage? Where are you getting that nonsense?
The Oath of Naturalization. If that's violated, it's grounds for revocation of Naturalization:
"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; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
For example, Naturalizations are indeed revoked for violating any of the above, including but not limited to violating US laws. Anyone who knowingly violates their Oath of Naturalization at the time they take the Oath (violation including but not limited to having failed to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty) has obtained Naturalization illegally.
Just like the 11+ million illegal aliens' continuing presence in the US does not make them lawful US residents. I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding this very basic truth, but that's on you.
Yet again, and you are being obtuse, there us no law against having dual citizenship. An oath is not a law, the oath itself does not state anywhere dual citizenship is not allowed.
I have already presented the law to you, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem as you do not understand the plain language text I took directly from the state department.
Again, there is no law against dual citizenship, when naturalized, you do not sign any paper saying you must give up citizenship, and the US gov will even hire pepole with dual citizenship as there is no law against it. Also, for some people or is impossible to not be a dual citizen as their former country always considers them a citizen.
You have no knowledge and no experience in this subject. You keep refering to an oath bit an oath is not a law. I have presented the actual law to you. At this point though, you are just being obtuse.
Note that as such, she never took the Naturalization Oath. Operative word: born. Not Naturalized.
Again, operative concept: born US citizen. Neither were foreign nationals who Naturalized US citizens.
This is why ignoring the US citizenship requirements of both Naturalized former foreign nationals and illegal aliens is problematic. We now have an Administration that is taking steps to correct that. It's about time.
You take the oath when naturalized through marriage.
Yes I do. Most Americans welcome immigratuon regardless of caste or creed. The only people opposing it live in areas which receive little to no immigration regardless. Mississippians may be against immigration but immigrants don’t want to movthere anyway, they want to move to move to the metropolitan areas where the jobs are. Maybe if Missippians, West Virginians, and Kentuckyians would get off there asses and move to the major metropolitan areas and becone housekeepers, janitors, and dishwashers. We wouldn’t need immigrants if people left conservative rural areas and moved to the liberal cities and filled these jobs. Until conservatives convince people to move to liberal cities and take dishwashing jobs, they have zero right to complain about immigration and in fact should be celebrating it as all signs point to rural people being too lazy to move to the liberal cities where all the jobs are.
I will say this again: Until rural people leave their unproductive economic areas for the thriving metroploitam areas where all the jobs are, their views on immigration shluldn’t matter as the vast majority pf immigrants migrate to prosperous metropolitam areas that need workers.
Haha the attack on “racist, rural whitesâ€.you sound like a CNN or MSNBC paid plant. Do you really think that if US citizens were told in 1960s that I’m just 50urs the country would be just 60% white they really would have welcomed that with open arms? No, they would have voted that down in waves.
Haha the attack on “racist, rural whites”.you sound like a CNN or MSNBC paid plant. Do you really think that if US citizens were told in 1960s that I’m just 50urs the country would be just 60% white they really would have welcomed that with open arms? No, they would have voted that down in waves.
I think its really rather normal for folks to resist change and not be comfortable in new settings and situations, particular those that involve their sense of "home." That doesn't make them racist but then it also doesn't mean that the changes are inherently undesirable or that they cannot bring benefits - for everyone.
I grew up in an area of the country that remains about 95 percent white but after living many years in a multicultural city (and neighborhood) it now feel quite unreal when I visit areas mainly white.
They seem like artificial theme parks with everyone too similar in appearance and dress.
I think its really rather normal for folks to resist change and not be comfortable in new settings and situations, particular those that involve their sense of "home." That doesn't make them racist but then it also doesn't mean that the changes are inherently undesirable or that they cannot bring benefits - for everyone.
I grew up in an area of the country that remains about 95 percent white but after living many years in a multicultural city (and neighborhood) it now feel quite unreal when I visit areas mainly white.
They seem like artificial theme parks with everyone too similar in appearance and dress.
Yes, just look at DC for example, numerous articles about blacks wanting to keep DC black, resenting non-blacks moving in.
You then would have something like certification of citizenship pr report of a birth abroad, which a parent files with the embassy.
There is always, always a paper trail indicating your US citizenship.
Because DD was born overseas then later adopted, I'm sensitive to how fragile that paper trail can be. Her paper trail is more complicated because of the adoption but then on the other hand simpler because her "derivation" citizenship is thru a U.S. born citizen who has always lived here and not a parent or grandparent who was naturalized and may have spent substantial time outside the country.
While many of the individuals with derivation citizenships may well be Mexican whose families for decades moved between the two countries, a surprising number (to me) of Europeans moved to the US, had a US born child, then returned to the "home country." That child then married and had children and so on. The laws here get complicated and I'm totally unfamiliar with them but I appreciate the complexity and the difficulties in documentation.
It's because the initial fully legal paper trail for DD was so fragile and complicated and irreplaceable that I worked to create a duplicate set - for example, readopting in the US to obtain create documents in English. And even there there was errors that broke the "link" necessary to establish citizenship requiring the Court to amend its judgments. The Court even sent me final adoption papers for a second child; they accidentally appended my name to someone else's petition! And if THEY can't get it right ...
I know how (and have the money) to insist on corrections. Not all do.
And so when I read of how ICE cannot even keep track of the children it separated from parents ... and of US citizens detained because of database mismatches, I do appreciate how misspelt names and erroneous dates "break" even electronic trails. Too, decades ago all too many of those paper trails were not developed, created with errors, or lost with family memories now fading.
Then there are whole classes like the children born to American fathers and Vietnamese mothers who never had the proper documentation or even the opportunity to develop it.
OP writes of his concern that tightening "procedures" will create difficulties for non-US born citizens. One reason some pay thousands of dollars for Certificates of Citizenship (and they do cost that for a family) is because they fear the day will come when Homeland Security will no longer recognize US passports issued by a different agency (State) as valid proof of citizenship for certain proceedings.
Frankly, I can't imagine that would ever happen but still that's one of the reasons I obtained a Certificate of Citizenship for DD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
