[Deaf Smith]

It is the response to your #24 post about enforcing the oath of allegiance for naturalization.

No I do not like it

It will take Congress to fix this BUT, if you read the history Congess has refused to touch it for 200 years.

[Hostage]

You took #24 out of context. The context is that naturalized citizens who commit treasonous acts are subject to criminal charges of treason because they owe allegiance as evidenced by the 'Oath of Allegiance' they must take as part of their naturalization.

Your #20:
> "Got schooled 2 weeks+ ago that SCOTUS ruled in the 50's that the Naturalization Oath was ceremonial only and not enforceable."

Of course and without question an Oath of Allegiance is an enforceable element in the context of criminal charges of treason. The point to understand is that a criminal charge of treason can only be pressed on traitorous citizens "owing allegiance" AS evidenced by 'Oath'. The federal statute on treason is here excerpted:

"18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason ...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"

The question is "who owes allegiance" and how is it evidenced? Anyone taking an Oath of Allegiance is subject to the federal statute for treason and that includes naturalized citizens.

"All naturalized citizens" who commit certain acts against the United States, are subject to the federal statute for treason.

In your #27, you changed the subject to the legality of stripping citizenship in matters of dual citizenship. Those SCOTUS rulings (Perez and Afoyim) had nothing to do with 'treason' which is the subject of this thread.