though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.
.
Yes, the state department has a avenue for minors who want to renounce their citizenship. Stop obfucscating.
Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS
Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent.
Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.
Take your accusations of dishonesty and shove 'em.
Unlike you, if I'm shown to be wrong about something, I have absolutely no problem with being improved . . . but the fact of the matter is that I merely misremembered that pertinent detail. There are many such details in statutory and case law, as there are many circumstances under which a minor cannot lose his citizenship, but an adult can.
By the way, the matter is correctly stated in the works on my blog written some years ago. I know because I checked to make sure. In other words, I knew that, but had forgotten about that exception.
The issues of citizenship and nationality law are circumstantially numerous and complex, as well as being subject to change. Prior to historically recent changes in the code, a minor could
not renounce his citizenship, and of course a minor's citizenship cannot be directly lost or revoked based on any action of a minor's parent(s) or guardian(s).
Fine.
Unlike you, I
do care if I'm saying something that's incorrect. But talking about minors, that is a minor detail of no significance to the points being made.
On the other hand, while you incessantly call others liars, we have you making false claims virtually every time you open your trap on this thread, beginning with your stupid thesis, of course, and including your latest attempt to jam that absurdity into an article that on two major points you clearly do not correctly understand at all!
We have you stupidly confusing the distinction between what Congress
allows, mostly as a matter of silence, by the way, and what it officially
recognizes in terms of nationality; and we have you stupidity
(1) confusing citizenship in terms of international law and
(2) citizenship in terms of allegiance under constitutional and statutory law.
But have you acknowledge these obvious errors in your reading of that article? Hell no!
Have I made any major errors, let alone any other errors whatsoever aside from this bit of minutia? Hell no!
We're still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that Congress and the State Department have certified the natural-born status of three presidential candidates who were indisputably born abroad and conferred citizenship at birth via congressional
jus sanguinus (the law of the bloodline)! You know, that which you claim to be a constitutionally third kind of citizenship, i.e., "statutory citizenship," which of course is technically true in terms of methodology. . . .
But if what you say is true about its essence, in the face of the biographical facts regarding the life and times of these three persons, how could this be?
And what about that nonsense of yours in which you tried jam your absurd thesis into Rep. John Bingham's astute observation about the Fourteenth Amendment relative to the construct of natural-born citizenship? You never answered my post.
Recall:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...t-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement-9.html
The answer to your questions and mine, Einstein: The parents (plural) he was alluding to
include the blood of the nation relative to the prevailing law of
jus sanguinus in 1866, not to any iteration of that principle in terms of plural parentage anywhere in the Constitution, let alone in the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Since 1934 the blood of nation has been predicated on parent/parents! Further, the only persons at that time (i.e., before
Wong Kim Ark) that would have been born on U.S. soil, yet, nevertheless, would have emerged from the womb outside the territorial jurisdiction or the jurisdictional allegiance of the United States for constitutional purposes would have been the offspring of native Indians, foreign residents of America, and diplomats/attachés officially assigned to America by foreign powers.
Why?
Because such persons carried their foreign nationality and allegiance within them. They were not of the blood or of the soil of the nation, and the United States did not confer birthright citizenship before
Wong Kim Ark.
Dingbats like you who count yourselves to be conservatives would do the same thing that leftist judges tried to do during the 60's and 70's: reckon the citizenship of persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners—both legal and
illegal, for crying out loud!—to be of greater value than that conferred on persons duly born abroad of the blood of the nation—parent(s) with a duly established claim on the soil of the nation!
Yeah. That's the ticket! That makes sense! Bonehead.
There are
not and has never been three categories of citizenship under constitutional law. There are only two:
(1) natural-born citizenship and
(2) naturalized citizenship, and persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens ain't the latter.
I've got some more lessons to tech you concerning your misunderstandings on this post with which you graced us too:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-born-citizen-requirement-10.html#post8976170
Just like you didn't rightly grasp what the author in the above article is telling you, you didn't rightly grasp what the good professor in the videos you embedded is telling you.
You're a complete disaster. Once again, the only one you're fooling is yourself.
But you'll have to be patient. I'm currently engaged in two other heavy discussions on this board.
) because such persons are necessarily born into a state of citizenship that entails a duality of national allegiance . . . according to U.S. constitutional and statutory law.
