[rolling_stone]

so you don't have a legal precedent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States

... The Court's majority held that the jury in Kawakita's trial had been justified in concluding that he had not lost or given up his U.S. citizenship while he was in Japan during the war.[9]:720–732 The Court added that an American citizen owed allegiance to the United States, and could be found guilty of treason, no matter where he lived—even for actions committed in another country that also claimed him as a citizen.[3][9]:732–736 Further, given the flagrant nature of Kawakita's actions, the majority found that the trial judge had not acted arbitrarily in imposing a death sentence.[9]:744–745

................ http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/190F2d506.html

TOMOYA KAWAKITA v. UNITED STATES

No. 12061

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT 190 F.2d 506; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453

June 22, 1951

PRIOR HISTORY: See 96 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1950)

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed, 343 U.S. 717 (1952); the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by Presidential proclamation on Oct. 29, 1953; Kawakita was pardoned on Oct. 24, 1963 under condition of perpetual exile, having lost his American nationality by reason of conviction for treason.

II. Did Kawakita Owe Allegiance to The United States?

The definition of treason is a part of the supreme law of the land. United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 3, provides: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. * * * ”

Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1, Act of March 4, 1909, c. 321, Sec. 1, 35 Stat. 1088, as it stood at the time of the alleged overt acts, provided: n6 “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”

By definition, the crime of treason can only be committed by one owing allegiance to the United States. It is appellant’s contention that at the time the acts charged in the [**9] indictment were committed, he did not owe allegiance to the United States because, as a dual American and Japanese citizen, he owed allegiance to Japan alone while in that country. According to appellant’s reasoning, in his brief, under his dual citizenship he could adhere to the enemy and give it aid and comfort while in the enemy country with impunity.As we shall presently show, dual citizenship does nothing to relieve an American citizen of his citizenship obligations. An American citizen retains that status until expatriated under American law and he is subject to trial and punishment for treason. It is also contended that, having been a Japanese national from birth, Kawakita’s act of registration in the family census register, and his other activities during the war, amounted to expatriation from United States citizenship.

Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 1939, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320. In order to be relieved of the duties of allegiance, consent of the sovereign is required. Mackenzie v. Hare, 1915, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297. [**10] Congress has provided that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all [*512] people, n7 and has further made a legislative declaration as to what acts shall amount to an exercise of such right. n8 The enumerated methods set out in the chapter are expressly [*513] made the sole means of expatriation. n9

[Hostage]

What is your point? The Kawakita case centered on a citizen born on US soil to Japanese parents and who had taken an oath of allegiance to the United States as a minor before obtaining a US passport then went to Japan where he committed treasonous crimes against American POWs. Presumably, his oath was administered as a condition of obtaining a US passport where I would think both parents were not US citizens but where he or his parents were able to show his birth on US soil while they were in legal status in the US. To get the statute that Dept of State used to obtain his oath will require research of the existing statutes at the time. Those statutes existed because government at that level is by the book/manual and especially in the issuance of US Passports. In any context, he took the oath:

"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/717/

Had Kawakita completed a renunciation of citizenship to the United States before committing treason, a charge of treason against him would not stand. Other charges of criminal nature might have applied to him but treasonous crime is reserved for citizens owing allegiance as evidenced by oath.

Question: why do people make half-baked assertions and not do their due diligence, rather they force me to do the work for them? This is an abuse of my time.

I have exchanged many fruitful discussions with Freepers who take the time to do the work themselves before spouting off some reference which is out of context or misapplied. I can forgive if someone errs and apologizes but I am not expecting an apology here because I don't believe there is a requisite class of character to do that. Prove me wrong on that.