AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: New lead in Yushchenko poisoning investigation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:So, according to the new law, one could go and lets say, join the Israeli Army because they are Jewish (all Jews have a right to Israeli citizenship) and not lose their US citizenship?

Yeah, if you're a natural born US citizen (not immigrant), I think you're OK. Now, before doing anything like that, I'd check with a lawyer specializing in immigration and citizenship issues. Here's a relevent information from State:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/...p_776.html

Quote:A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.


Now, read this to put some caution into the equation:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/...p_778.html

Quote:POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING STATUTES

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:


(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

So the State Department is still promulgating the "old" statute. I presume it still has application, perhaps for immigrants who obtain US citizenship through naturalization, but continue to act as though they are foreigners.

I suspect the "and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship" is newly added to meet constitutionality requirements imposed by the courts. Or at least I don't remember it being there 7 years ago.

But this is the basic statute that the US Supreme Court reeled in and limited. I can't remember the relevent case, but I'll do some searching and see if I can find it.

As an example of this, one of the Al Qaida guys caught some years ago was Saudi, but after investigation of his background it was discovered he was born in the US to legal immigrants, and was therefore a US citizen. But, he was only in the US a baby, and had no recollection of US life. As part of a deal, he renounced his US citizenship, and was sent to Saudi Arabia to spend time in prison under Saudi custody, rather than the US. I guess he figured he would be dead meat in a US Federal prison.

"The law" consists of the actual statutes passed by legislatures AND case law. What I don't have for you is the case law, and I'll see if I can find it. It's an issue that I try an keep current on, since I have a daugher who is a dual citizen.

-S
Here's the case I was thinking about, saying that the US congress can't strip a person of their citizenship without their consent, even if they do 'bad' things:

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Wong

Quote:Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

The basic point of the Supreme Court's ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk was that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution -- while originally intended mainly to guarantee citizenship to freed Negro slaves and their descendants -- had effectively elevated citizenship to the status of a constitutionally protected right. Hence, Congress had no right to pass a law which had the effect of depriving an American of his citizenship without his assent.

Thus, the court ruled, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.


He he he. This is good, one of Klintoon's buddies, Marc Rich. He may be a bast*ard, but he's our bast*rd, even when he tried to be Spanish. Too bad Klintoon pardoned him.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Wong

Quote:Action and Deltamar v. Rich, 951 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)

Marc Rich, defendant in a multi-million-dollar business lawsuit, contended that the Federal District Court which had heard his case lacked jurisdiction because he (Rich) had given up his US citizenship in 1982 when he became a naturalized citizen of Spain. The Spanish naturalization oath he took included an explicit renunciation of US citizenship.

Although Rich asserted that his Spanish naturalization conclusively established his intent to relinquish US citizenship, the court said there "must be proof of a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship before an act of foreign naturalization or oath of loyalty to another sovereign can result in the expatriation of an American citizen. . . . Despite mouthing words of renunciation before a Spanish official", the court continued, Rich "brought a Swiss action as an American national, travelled on his American passport, and publicized himself in a commercial register as a United States citizen."

Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled that despite Rich's actions, he had retained his US citizenship because he had never truly intended to relinquish it.
Gunnen4u Wrote:Back on track:

So, Khruschev is a model for Yushchenko's tactics today?
Khruschev and tactic were incompatible, but if you mean situation around him, it looks so. Khruschev was overthrowned, when he left the capital for Crimea, Yushchenko obtained his problems, when he left Kiev for Astana...

Gunnen4u Wrote:I wouldn't give up my US citizenship, and apparently, neither did she.

Difference: She is the moron who wanted to be a Ukrainian.
Difference: She wanted to become first lady of Ukraine and could become... But you hardly want and i'm not sure, if you can...
:?
Pages: 1 2