“There are no grounds...”
Sure there are grounds. What is the point of the oath he just swore last year if he cannot be held accountable to it? He got citizenship under false pretenses, that would be my “grounds” for stripping him of it, and its cloak of protections.
I would agree with you if he was natural born and swore no oath, but that is not the case.
You can’t strip someone retroactively. He was a citizen when he committed the crime. He may lose the citizenship if convicted but that’s irrelevant.
Empire - we are thinking the same thing.
Lookat mypost 42.
I think he canbe stripped of his citzenship.
Who's keeping an eye on all those "natural born" offspring of Chinese and Mexican mothers who come here only for birthing babies to take advantage of our stupid citizenship law? No one, I'm sure. I'll bet plenty of pregnant women from potential jihadist countries do the same.
This Boston terrorism opens a whole new chapter in which easy American citizenship is literally breeding a new generation of Islamic and other terrorists that will be extremely difficult to prosecute under existing law. We've seen just the tip of the iceberg.
“Sure there are grounds. What is the point of the oath he just swore last year if he cannot be held accountable to it? He got citizenship under false pretenses, that would be my “grounds” for stripping him of it, and its cloak of protections.”
Let me put this in anther way. I could just as quickly assume that you got citizenship under false pretenses, or deny in absence of evidence(that I block or ignore) that you have citizenship.
Then your entire system of due process comes crashing down simply because of 1 claim I made and imposed in isolation.
Whether or not the man is a citizen he is indisputably in one of theses united States, where he also committed the crime. He was NOT found on any battle field, but a Massachusetts Neighborhood. No matter how many smoke Grenadas or shots were fired in his capture.
The demands of due process as well as all other limited on government are in fact limits upon the government not ‘civil rights’ granted at our discression. We cannot simply abandon theses limits because we had made a particular judgement surrounding the nature of his offence.
If foreign nationals were involved, and capable of further attacks against us then yes. We must go overseas to stop the attacks at their source either diplomatically or military if nessary.
But as far as this boy is concerned he is technically a Citizen of Massachusetts who has committed a crime against the people of Massachusetts. He must be tried accordingly until such time that we have reason to believe that he is part of a foreign based organization capable of further acts against us.
Even then there is no harm in letting Massachusetts try the man as if he is not.
It is of course true that theses limits do not exist overseas in a war zone, but Massachusetts sadly is not overseas nor is it currently a separate nation at war with us.
“Sure there are grounds. What is the point of the oath he just swore last year if he cannot be held accountable to it? He got citizenship under false pretenses, that would be my “grounds” for stripping him of it, and its cloak of protections.
I would agree with you if he was natural born and swore no oath, but that is not the case.”
I like your argument Empire...same goes for the Traitor in Chief...whether or not he swore to get ‘citizenship’, he swore twice on two Jan 20ths, four years apart. And he, in my opinion is not ‘natural born’...maybe not even a citizen.