IDF...Here We Come.

[MHunterB]

All of that about 'oaths' was just red herrings: the US law is very clear that the primary consideration is the intent of the individual to relinquish their US citizenship. The foreign military service, the oaths - none of that matters EXCEPT if the individual has that intent.

Basically, that section of law is 'seconding' the individual American's choice. And incidentally, until we institute a military draft again - any US citizen has the right to not join the US military.

I cannot see the legal basis for punishing US citizens for exercising their right to join a foreign military of any nation with whom we are not at war.

There has to be some legal principle invoked to strip a citizen of their most basic right.

 

[Roudy]

Asked and answered.

I wonder why Roudy won't answer my question ??? Ok I will make it even easier for him, just give me the post number where you answered it, that will satisfy me, but somehow I think I am out of luck !!!

Asked and answered. The loyalty oath is given to those who are simply serving as volunteers in the army, and the oath of allegiance is for those who are also becoming citizens. Just like any other country has it, including the USA.

Read a few posts back and you'll be able to see.

Why is this such an important issue? I really don't understand. It happens all the time.

 

[sealadaigh]

Seal, are you going to cite the legal grounds on which you base your argument for revoking citizenship of Americans who enlist in foreign militaries 'while the US is involved in a war'?

If you are serious about making such a proposal, it's going to have to be per US law - and if my reading of the pertinent law is correct, currently such revocation is rooted in a citizen's intent to relinquish citizenship - which says nothing about dual citizenship. I know my husband served with troops who had dual citizenship. If we are allowing them into our military, I should think it'd be reciprocal.....

It seems to me the ONLY way what you propose could be legal would be if the US were to outlaw dual citizenship across the board. Is that what you are suggesting we need to do?

there is language in US law that provides for the revocation of the citisenship of naturalised american citisens under certain circumstances. i am suggesting further amended and speciic language.

INA: ACT 349 - LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN

dual citisenship is very complicated. reciprocal is a sweeping term and your example really doesn't apply. i have no intention os discussing dual+ citisenships beyond what i said.

Naturalized or not is irrelevant. You haven't shared the *legal* justification for making such a change as you wish. It is futile to make suggestions without said legal basis.

Just what are you considering such a heinous 'offense' against the US that a person should have not merely their right to vote, but citizenship itself revoked? A triple murderer who's a born citizen still gets to retain their citizenship while in solitary for life......

I was unaware that dual citizenship is all that complicated: can you provide some info for that? And why should discussing it be a problem? It's actually fairly common here in the US (and in Canada, and some other countries)

fine, make what i said a crime.

as or dual citisenship, i really said nothing about that and it was not part of my argument. i was drawn into that argument...but there was a time when the USA did not recognise dual citisenship. neing a dual+ citisen myself, i liked that concept. when it chaanged, i attempted to renounce my citisenship in the our other countries that claimed me. most rejected that renunciation. it really isn't that easy.

so god save the queen, am yisrael chai, liberte, egalite, fraternite, i'm popeye the sailor man and whatever else suits your fancy at the moment. as or me, i pledge my true faith and allegiance to protect and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign and domestic and have no intention of diluting such true faith and allegiance to any other foreign power so if you will forgive me but...god bless america. and forgive me also, while are men and women are fighting and dieing overseas, for unquestioningly supporting them and only them.

if you want to start a thread about dual citisenship, be my guest.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

there is no question about dual loyalties here. these olim have rejected the USA and have demeaned our military with such statements as "I decided I wanted to serve in the best air force in the world with the best pilots".

[...]

This fellow's offhand assessment is not limited to the military. Most Jews regard themselves and everything Jewish to be generally superior to all non-Jews (goyim) and to everything not Jewish, including the goyim military.

It's been my observation that Jews are intellectually superior to non-Jews. But it seems most Jews' believe their superiority is not limited to that single and specific element but reflects their general status as the chosen people of God.

I suspect this sense of superiority, and the subtle but unmistakable exclusivity that derives from it, accounts to some extent for the persecution and repeated expulsions the Jews have experienced thoughout their history and has contributed to their being thought of by some as a separate race..

 

[sealadaigh]

[...]

there is no question about dual loyalties here. these olim have rejected the USA and have demeaned our military with such statements as "I decided I wanted to serve in the best air force in the world with the best pilots".

[...]

This fellow's offhand assessment is not limited to the military. Most Jews regard themselves and everything Jewish to be generally superior to all non-Jews (goyim) and to everything not Jewish, including the goyim military.

It's been my observation that Jews are intellectually superior to non-Jews. But it seems most Jews' believe their superiority is not limited to that single and specific element but reflects their general status as the chosen people of God.

I suspect this sense of superiority, and the subtle but unmistakable exclusivity that derives from it, accounts to some extent for the persecution and repeated expulsions the Jews have experienced thoughout their history and has contributed to their being thought of by some as a separate race..

well, this thread certainly brings me closer to agreeing with you...cretainly with regard to izonist jews anyway....except for the "being intellectually superior" part.

cracks me up. one of these catz will argue that an oath of allegiance is different than an oath of loyalty on one hand and then in state later that "allegiance" and "loyalty" are the same thing a few posts later and then go back to arguing that the oaths are different. another one thinks that laws cannot be amended or, apparently created.

as far as i am concerned, let them take their shots but as for me, this thread is closed.

 

[Ropey]

MikeK and Seal.

Well met.

 

[Roudy]

[...]

there is no question about dual loyalties here. these olim have rejected the USA and have demeaned our military with such statements as "I decided I wanted to serve in the best air force in the world with the best pilots".

[...]

This fellow's offhand assessment is not limited to the military. Most Jews regard themselves and everything Jewish to be generally superior to all non-Jews (goyim) and to everything not Jewish, including the goyim military.

It's been my observation that Jews are intellectually superior to non-Jews. But it seems most Jews' believe their superiority is not limited to that single and specific element but reflects their general status as the chosen people of God.

I suspect this sense of superiority, and the subtle but unmistakable exclusivity that derives from it, accounts to some extent for the persecution and repeated expulsions the Jews have experienced thoughout their history and has contributed to their being thought of by some as a separate race..

Antisemitic canard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accusations of Racism

According to a 1984 hearing record before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations in the US Congress concerning the Soviet Jewry,

"This vicious anti-Semitic canard, frequently repeated by other Soviet writers and officials, is based upon the malicious notion that the "Chosen People" of the Torah and Talmud preaches "superiority over other peoples", as well as exclusivity. This was, of course, the principal theme of the notorious Tsarist Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[58]

 

[Roudy]

[...]

there is no question about dual loyalties here. these olim have rejected the USA and have demeaned our military with such statements as "I decided I wanted to serve in the best air force in the world with the best pilots".

[...]

This fellow's offhand assessment is not limited to the military. Most Jews regard themselves and everything Jewish to be generally superior to all non-Jews (goyim) and to everything not Jewish, including the goyim military.

It's been my observation that Jews are intellectually superior to non-Jews. But it seems most Jews' believe their superiority is not limited to that single and specific element but reflects their general status as the chosen people of God.

I suspect this sense of superiority, and the subtle but unmistakable exclusivity that derives from it, accounts to some extent for the persecution and repeated expulsions the Jews have experienced thoughout their history and has contributed to their being thought of by some as a separate race..

well, this thread certainly brings me closer to agreeing with you...cretainly with regard to izonist jews anyway....except for the "being intellectually superior" part.

cracks me up. one of these catz will argue that an oath of allegiance is different than an oath of loyalty on one hand and then in state later that "allegiance" and "loyalty" are the same thing a few posts later and then go back to arguing that the oaths are different. another one thinks that laws cannot be amended or, apparently created.

as far as i am concerned, let them take their shots but as for me, this thread is closed.

Loyalty oaths are different that Pledges of Allegiance. Perhaps I should post the Loyalty oath for people joining the US military and the Pledge of Allegiance to see the difference. Seems like some may have missed it.

 

[sealadaigh]

This fellow's offhand assessment is not limited to the military. Most Jews regard themselves and everything Jewish to be generally superior to all non-Jews (goyim) and to everything not Jewish, including the goyim military.

It's been my observation that Jews are intellectually superior to non-Jews. But it seems most Jews' believe their superiority is not limited to that single and specific element but reflects their general status as the chosen people of God.

I suspect this sense of superiority, and the subtle but unmistakable exclusivity that derives from it, accounts to some extent for the persecution and repeated expulsions the Jews have experienced thoughout their history and has contributed to their being thought of by some as a separate race..

well, this thread certainly brings me closer to agreeing with you...cretainly with regard to izonist jews anyway....except for the "being intellectually superior" part.

cracks me up. one of these catz will argue that an oath of allegiance is different than an oath of loyalty on one hand and then in state later that "allegiance" and "loyalty" are the same thing a few posts later and then go back to arguing that the oaths are different. another one thinks that laws cannot be amended or, apparently created.

as far as i am concerned, let them take their shots but as for me, this thread is closed.

Loyalty oaths are different that Pledges of Allegiance. Perhaps I should post the Loyalty oath for people joining the US military and the Pledge of Allegiance to see the difference. Seems like some may have missed it.

absolutely. post the military loyalty oath.

this should be good.

 

[Roudy]

well, this thread certainly brings me closer to agreeing with you...cretainly with regard to izonist jews anyway....except for the "being intellectually superior" part.

cracks me up. one of these catz will argue that an oath of allegiance is different than an oath of loyalty on one hand and then in state later that "allegiance" and "loyalty" are the same thing a few posts later and then go back to arguing that the oaths are different. another one thinks that laws cannot be amended or, apparently created.

as far as i am concerned, let them take their shots but as for me, this thread is closed.

Loyalty oaths are different that Pledges of Allegiance. Perhaps I should post the Loyalty oath for people joining the US military and the Pledge of Allegiance to see the difference. Seems like some may have missed it.

absolutely. post the military loyalty oath.

this should be good.

<<<------Available a few posts back.

 

[Spitfire]

My passport says I lose my American citizenship if I serve in the armed forces of another state.

 

[sealadaigh]

Loyalty oaths are different that Pledges of Allegiance. Perhaps I should post the Loyalty oath for people joining the US military and the Pledge of Allegiance to see the difference. Seems like some may have missed it.

absolutely. post the military loyalty oath.

this should be good.

<<<------Available a few posts back.

i took the military oath.

perhaps you need to post it again, for your own edification if nothing else.

i have no intent or deesire to read through all your posts. just give us a link.

 

[Roudy]

absolutely. post the military loyalty oath.

this should be good.

<<<------Available a few posts back.

i took the military oath.

perhaps you need to post it again, for your own edification if nothing else.

i have no intent or deesire to read through all your posts. just give us a link.

Not necessary to post something twice. The Israeli loyalty oath, like the US loyalty oath both contain the word allegiance in them.

Besides its really irrelevant. The claim was that these recruits made pledges of allegiance, and I think the evidence isn't there that it occurred. They possibly took an oath of loyalty, and if they were also applying for citizenship it would be the oath of allegiance. Not much different between the two. They served in the military of another country, as occurs often, and they do require oaths. It is not illegal, and you don't loose our citizenship. Much ado about nothing.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

My passport says I lose my American citizenship if I serve in the armed forces of another state.

Bullshit.

 

[MHunterB]

there is language in US law that provides for the revocation of the citisenship of naturalised american citisens under certain circumstances. i am suggesting further amended and speciic language.

INA: ACT 349 - LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN

dual citisenship is very complicated. reciprocal is a sweeping term and your example really doesn't apply. i have no intention os discussing dual+ citisenships beyond what i said.

Naturalized or not is irrelevant. You haven't shared the *legal* justification for making such a change as you wish. It is futile to make suggestions without said legal basis.

Just what are you considering such a heinous 'offense' against the US that a person should have not merely their right to vote, but citizenship itself revoked? A triple murderer who's a born citizen still gets to retain their citizenship while in solitary for life......

I was unaware that dual citizenship is all that complicated: can you provide some info for that? And why should discussing it be a problem? It's actually fairly common here in the US (and in Canada, and some other countries)

fine, make what i said a crime.
Please show the words of my posts where you are under the impression I did anything of the sort. A law needs to have a basis in principle: I simply asked you to give me a principle from which your proposed legal change would derive. That's SOP: there's nothing the least bit untoward in any of the questions I've asked - if you believe there is, please cite and we can discuss.

as or dual citisenship, i really said nothing about that and it was not part of my argument. i was drawn into that argument...

Of course you didn't, but it DOES pertain - and I was unaware that there was any 'argument'. You did, however 'draw in' any number of irrelevancies......'you' in the plural. The whole 'oath' thing was irrelevant, given the context of individual intent to renounce.

but there was a time when the USA did not recognise dual citisenship. neing a dual+ citisen myself, i liked that concept. when it chaanged, i attempted to renounce my citisenship in the our other countries that claimed me. most rejected that renunciation. it really isn't that easy.
[Right - it's not all that easy to *renounce* citizenship - and here you are arguing a case to have it *taken away* as a penalty for actions which are obviously NOT criminal nor 'disloyal' as the US has defined them for 230+ years. But you cannot cite a principle for such a change

so god save the queen, am yisrael chai, liberte, egalite, fraternite, i'm popeye the sailor man and whatever else suits your fancy at the moment.
This is not about 'my fancy': this is about a poster seeking to remove other citizens' most basic 'inalienable right', citizenship, as a *penalty* for actions which the US has never seemed to consider even 'criminal', let alone 'treasonous'.

as or me, i pledge my true faith and allegiance to protect and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign and domestic and have no intention of diluting such true faith and allegiance to any other foreign power so if you will forgive me but...god bless america. and forgive me also, while are men and women are fighting and dieing overseas, for unquestioningly supporting them and only them.

No can do: I am only human and cannot grant forgiveness for anyone else.

if you want to start a thread about dual citisenship, be my guest.
We all know that's never what this thread was about. You should know, since you started it.

This thread was about *your idea* that US citizens who enlist with another nation's military "while the US is fighting a war" should be **penalized** by having their US citizenship revoked.

The law you pointed to does NOT reference any such situation (unless I read it wrong?): it relies upon INTENT of the individual and does NOT refer to any situation where the US would INITIATE such revocation.

ALL I have done is to point out the need for any law to have a basis in Constitutional principles - and you have not been able to come up with anything so far. I believe I noted that such an 'amendment' to our legal code would apparently violate the concept of citizenship as an 'inalienable' right - while it's not spelled out per se, I believe that by giving US citizenship to all at birth the law is effectively affirming that as 'inalienable'?

I acknowledge I consider it a poor idea, as the US does not revoke citizenship even, as I noted, for heinous crimes of murder. I also consider laws banning flag-burning to be poor laws - even though I find that behavior disgusting......

.

 

[MHunterB]

[...]

there is no question about dual loyalties here. these olim have rejected the USA and have demeaned our military with such statements as "I decided I wanted to serve in the best air force in the world with the best pilots".

[...]

This fellow's offhand assessment is not limited to the military. Most Jews regard themselves and everything Jewish to be generally superior to all non-Jews (goyim) and to everything not Jewish, including the goyim military.

It's been my observation that Jews are intellectually superior to non-Jews. But it seems most Jews' believe their superiority is not limited to that single and specific element but reflects their general status as the chosen people of God.

I suspect this sense of superiority, and the subtle but unmistakable exclusivity that derives from it, accounts to some extent for the persecution and repeated expulsions the Jews have experienced thoughout their history and has contributed to their being thought of by some as a separate race..

Mike, you seem unable to grasp the BIG PICTURE here - this was per the OP's own words not ever a rant against American Jews, but expressing a desire to strip US citizenship from anyone who enlisted in any other nation's military *while the US has troops fighting in a war*

Again, the topic was: a desire to strip US citizenship from anyone who enlisted in any other nation's military *while the US has troops fighting in a war*

Now if your post only pertains to Jews, it isn't relevant to the actual topic as defined by the OP himself.

AND - much more importantly - unless it can be framed in general terms as well as deriving from existing principles or at least not in conflict with existing legal principles, it's absolutely a non-starter, hopeless, a lost cause, and simply one more personal rant.......

 

[sealadaigh]

Naturalized or not is irrelevant. You haven't shared the *legal* justification for making such a change as you wish. It is futile to make suggestions without said legal basis.

Just what are you considering such a heinous 'offense' against the US that a person should have not merely their right to vote, but citizenship itself revoked? A triple murderer who's a born citizen still gets to retain their citizenship while in solitary for life......

I was unaware that dual citizenship is all that complicated: can you provide some info for that? And why should discussing it be a problem? It's actually fairly common here in the US (and in Canada, and some other countries)

fine, make what i said a crime.
Please show the words of my posts where you are under the impression I did anything of the sort. A law needs to have a basis in principle: I simply asked you to give me a principle from which your proposed legal change would derive. That's SOP: there's nothing the least bit untoward in any of the questions I've asked - if you believe there is, please cite and we can discuss.

as or dual citisenship, i really said nothing about that and it was not part of my argument. i was drawn into that argument...

Of course you didn't, but it DOES pertain - and I was unaware that there was any 'argument'. You did, however 'draw in' any number of irrelevancies......'you' in the plural. The whole 'oath' thing was irrelevant, given the context of individual intent to renounce.

but there was a time when the USA did not recognise dual citisenship. neing a dual+ citisen myself, i liked that concept. when it chaanged, i attempted to renounce my citisenship in the our other countries that claimed me. most rejected that renunciation. it really isn't that easy.
[Right - it's not all that easy to *renounce* citizenship - and here you are arguing a case to have it *taken away* as a penalty for actions which are obviously NOT criminal nor 'disloyal' as the US has defined them for 230+ years. But you cannot cite a principle for such a change

so god save the queen, am yisrael chai, liberte, egalite, fraternite, i'm popeye the sailor man and whatever else suits your fancy at the moment.
This is not about 'my fancy': this is about a poster seeking to remove other citizens' most basic 'inalienable right', citizenship, as a *penalty* for actions which the US has never seemed to consider even 'criminal', let alone 'treasonous'.

as or me, i pledge my true faith and allegiance to protect and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign and domestic and have no intention of diluting such true faith and allegiance to any other foreign power so if you will forgive me but...god bless america. and forgive me also, while are men and women are fighting and dieing overseas, for unquestioningly supporting them and only them.

No can do: I am only human and cannot grant forgiveness for anyone else.

if you want to start a thread about dual citisenship, be my guest.
We all know that's never what this thread was about. You should know, since you started it.

This thread was about *your idea* that US citizens who enlist with another nation's military "while the US is fighting a war" should be **penalized** by having their US citizenship revoked.

The law you pointed to does NOT reference any such situation (unless I read it wrong?): it relies upon INTENT of the individual and does NOT refer to any situation where the US would INITIATE such revocation.

ALL I have done is to point out the need for any law to have a basis in Constitutional principles - and you have not been able to come up with anything so far. I believe I noted that such an 'amendment' to our legal code would apparently violate the concept of citizenship as an 'inalienable' right - while it's not spelled out per se, I believe that by giving US citizenship to all at birth the law is effectively affirming that as 'inalienable'?

I acknowledge I consider it a poor idea, as the US does not revoke citizenship even, as I noted, for heinous crimes of murder. I also consider laws banning flag-burning to be poor laws - even though I find that behavior disgusting......

.

there are many laws that have no basis in constituional principle.

i provide you the framework for revocation of american citisenship.

i believe even joe lieberman introduced a bill in early 2012 to revoke citisenship under some circumstances.

once the box is opened, it is opened to all sorts of amendments and legislation.

but hey, let's just make it an offense of law to enlist in a foreign military and pledge allegiance to that state when america is at war.

also, "intent" is a vague language word.

 

[Connery]

Moved to proper forum

 

[Roudy]

fine, make what i said a crime.
Please show the words of my posts where you are under the impression I did anything of the sort. A law needs to have a basis in principle: I simply asked you to give me a principle from which your proposed legal change would derive. That's SOP: there's nothing the least bit untoward in any of the questions I've asked - if you believe there is, please cite and we can discuss.

as or dual citisenship, i really said nothing about that and it was not part of my argument. i was drawn into that argument...

Of course you didn't, but it DOES pertain - and I was unaware that there was any 'argument'. You did, however 'draw in' any number of irrelevancies......'you' in the plural. The whole 'oath' thing was irrelevant, given the context of individual intent to renounce.

but there was a time when the USA did not recognise dual citisenship. neing a dual+ citisen myself, i liked that concept. when it chaanged, i attempted to renounce my citisenship in the our other countries that claimed me. most rejected that renunciation. it really isn't that easy.
[Right - it's not all that easy to *renounce* citizenship - and here you are arguing a case to have it *taken away* as a penalty for actions which are obviously NOT criminal nor 'disloyal' as the US has defined them for 230+ years. But you cannot cite a principle for such a change

so god save the queen, am yisrael chai, liberte, egalite, fraternite, i'm popeye the sailor man and whatever else suits your fancy at the moment.
This is not about 'my fancy': this is about a poster seeking to remove other citizens' most basic 'inalienable right', citizenship, as a *penalty* for actions which the US has never seemed to consider even 'criminal', let alone 'treasonous'.

as or me, i pledge my true faith and allegiance to protect and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign and domestic and have no intention of diluting such true faith and allegiance to any other foreign power so if you will forgive me but...god bless america. and forgive me also, while are men and women are fighting and dieing overseas, for unquestioningly supporting them and only them.

No can do: I am only human and cannot grant forgiveness for anyone else.

if you want to start a thread about dual citisenship, be my guest.
We all know that's never what this thread was about. You should know, since you started it.

This thread was about *your idea* that US citizens who enlist with another nation's military "while the US is fighting a war" should be **penalized** by having their US citizenship revoked.

The law you pointed to does NOT reference any such situation (unless I read it wrong?): it relies upon INTENT of the individual and does NOT refer to any situation where the US would INITIATE such revocation.

ALL I have done is to point out the need for any law to have a basis in Constitutional principles - and you have not been able to come up with anything so far. I believe I noted that such an 'amendment' to our legal code would apparently violate the concept of citizenship as an 'inalienable' right - while it's not spelled out per se, I believe that by giving US citizenship to all at birth the law is effectively affirming that as 'inalienable'?

I acknowledge I consider it a poor idea, as the US does not revoke citizenship even, as I noted, for heinous crimes of murder. I also consider laws banning flag-burning to be poor laws - even though I find that behavior disgusting......

.

there are many laws that have no basis in constituional principle.

i provide you the framework for revocation of american citisenship.

i believe even joe lieberman introduced a bill in early 2012 to revoke citisenship under some circumstances.

once the box is opened, it is opened to all sorts of amendments and legislation.

but hey, let's just make it an offense of law to enlist in a foreign military and pledge allegiance to that state when america is at war.

also, "intent" is a vague language word.

That will never happen and won't work. The US currently accepts dual / multiple citizenships from most nations. And of course part of the requirement is to pledge allegiance, and in some cases if required, serve in its military. For example Canadian citizens who qualify and wish to be US citizens, have to pledge allegiance to the US, and vice versa.