2 Lodi residents refused entry back into U.S.

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 26, 2006 | Demian Bulwa

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Muhammad Ismail...

Ismail, cast out like his namesake.

[Doohickey]

They're Americans. If they're accused of a crime, they should be charged. If they aren't, the should be free to re-enter the country. Like it or not, our Consitution makes no distinction between native-born and naturalized citizens.

[ndt]

"Yes you can."

Would you care to provide any legal evidence for your proclamation?

[FlingWingFlyer]

Do you have any idea what an idiotic statement this is?*

*See the first sentence of my post.

If the FBI "connects the dots" and learns that these people are trained TERRORISTS, I don't think they need to be here. DO YOU? I'm not talking about attending a U.S. military training camp. I'm talking about learning to become a suicide bomber or IN FLIGHT airline "pilot." You might like these people living next door to you but I'll pass. I don't care if they are a U.S. citizen or not. ANYBODY can be a "U.S. citizen" in this day and age.

[ndt]

"...they permanently maintain the right to take it back."

There is no basis in law for that claim. One Citizen has exactly the same rights as another regardless of how they became one. You are confusing a citizen with a permanent resident alien.

"The other, supposedly a 'US citizen' by birth, really isn't unless he was born in Washington, D.C. or in a port, fort or arsenal."

Now you are just being silly.

" I don't always like what the government does either, but that doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to do it anyway."

When we accept the government can strip the rights of a citizen without due process we are in fact accepting that those rights don't exist for any of us. That is not a door I want opened.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[daylate-dollarshort]

As you wish............

---

REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION

Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451]

(a) It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively: Provided, That refusal on the part of a naturalized citizen within a period of ten years following his naturalization to testify as a witness in any proceeding before a congressional committee concerning his subversive activities, in a case where such person has been convicted for contempt for such refusal, shall be held to constitute a ground for revocation of such person's naturalization under this subsection as having been procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. If the naturalized citizen does not reside in any judicial district in the United States at the time of bringing such suit, the proceedings may be instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United States district court in the judicial district in which such person last had his residence.

(b) The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty days' personal notice, unless waived by such party, in which to make answer to the petition of the United States; and if such naturalized person be absent from the United States or from the judicial district in which such person last had his residence, such notice shall be given either by personal service upon him or by publication in the manner provided for the service of summons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought.

(c) If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 313, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization as having been obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively.

(d) [Former subsection (d) was repealed by Sec. 104(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4308, Oct. 25, 1994), applicable to persons admitted to citizenship on or after October 25, 1994 under Sec. 104(e) of that Act. Subsequent subsections were redesignated respectively by Sec. 104(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4308, Oct. 25, 1994) .]

(d) Any person who claims United States citizenship through the naturalization of a parent or spouse in whose case there is a revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section on the ground that the order and certificate of naturalization were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall be deemed to have lost and to lose his citizenship and any right or privilege of citizenship which he may have, now has, or may hereafter acquire under and by virtue of such naturalization of such parent or spouse, regardless of whether such person is residing within or without the United States at the time of the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship. Any person who claims United States citizenship through the naturalization of a parent or spouse in whose case there is a revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, or under the provisions of section 329(c) of this title on any ground other than that the order and certificate of naturalization were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, shall be deemed to have lost and to lose his citizenship and any right or privilege of citizenship which would have been enjoyed by such person had there not been a revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, unless such person is residing in the United States at the time of the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.

(e) When a person shall be convicted under section 1425 of title 18 of the United States Code of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke, set aside, and declare void the final order admitting such person to citizenship, and shall declare the certificate of naturalization of such person to be canceled. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication.

(f) Whenever an order admitting an alien to citizenship shall be revoked and set aside or a certificate of naturalization shall be canceled, or both, as provided in this section, the court in which such judgment or decree is rendered shall make an order canceling such certificate and shall send a certified copy of such order to the Attorney General. The clerk of court shall transmit a copy of such order and judgment to the Attorney General. A person holding a certificate of naturalization or citizenship which has been canceled as provided by this section shall upon notice by the court by which the decree of cancellation was made, or by the Attorney General, surrender the same to the Attorney General.

(g) The provisions of this section shall apply not only to any naturalization granted and to certificates of naturalization and citizenship issued under the provisions of this title, but to any naturalization heretofore granted by any court, and to all certificates of naturalization and citizenship which may have been issued heretofore by any court or by the Commissioner based upon naturalization granted by any court, or by a designated representative of the Commissioner under the provisions of section 702 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, or by such designated representative under any other Act.

(h) Nothing contained in this section shall be regarded as limiting, denying, or restricting the power of the Attorney General to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate an order naturalizing the person.

[ndt]

You posted revocation of naturalization, which does not cover the deportation of a U.S. Citizen. You seem to be missing a step.

[Marine Inspector]

Revocation of Naturalization is not the same as deporting a US Citizen.

US Citizens can’t be deported. A person born in the US can never be deported.

A person that is naturalized can have that naturalization removed, at which point they become their former citizenship, at which time they are deportable.

[daylate-dollarshort]

I'm not missing a step- I'm providing the step.....

[daylate-dollarshort]

"A person that is naturalized can have that naturalization removed, at which point they become their former citizenship, at which time they are deportable."

Yep....that's what I said. The original statement that I refuted was "you can't deport a US citizen". I demonstrated that you indeed could deport a US citizen when that US citizen was a naturalized US citizen as are the subjects (save one) of this thread. What to do with the punk that was born here? Charge him with treason and after conviction, try him and fry him. That should effectively revoke his citizenship and you will have deported him to hell at the same time.

[MamaTexan]

There is no basis in law for that claim.

An oath is a legal contract. If a person takes an oath, then violates it, it is a breach of that contract.

-----

Now you are just being silly.

Ya think?

James Madison Federalist #43
The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes

***

Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry 22 Aug. 1789

The Sovereignty of the State extends over every part of its Territory. The federal Constitution expresses the same Idea in Sec. 8, Art. 1. A Power is therein given to Congress "to exercise like Authority," that is to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, "over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, and other needful Buildings," among which Light-houses may be included. Is it not the plain Conclusion from this Clause in the Compact, that Congress have not the Right to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, nor even to purchase or controul any part of the Territory within a State for the Erection of needful Buildings unless it has the Consent of its Legislature.

***

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1212—22
§ 1214. Nor can the cession be justly an object of jealousy to any state; or in the slightest degree impair its sovereignty. The ceded district is of a very narrow extent; and it rests in the option of the state, whether it shall be made or not. There can be little doubt, that the inhabitants composing it would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests be subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the representatives of the whole Union. It is not improbable, that an occurrence, at the very close of the revolutionary war, had a great effect in introducing this provision into the constitution.

***

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 276--78 1803
The exclusive right of legislation granted to congress by this clause of the constitution, is a power, probably, more extensive than it was in the contemplation of the framers of the constitution to grant: such, at least, was the construction which the convention of Virginia gave to it. They, therefore, proposed an article, as an amendment to the constitution, declaring, "that the powers granted by this clause, should extend only to such regulations as respect the police, and good government thereof." The states of New-York and North-Carolina proposed similar amendments; and one to the like effect was actually proposed in the senate of the United States, but shared the fate of many others, whose object was to limit the exercise of power in the federal government.

***

FYI- 'federal' is not the same thing as 'national'. The Founders used the 2 different terms for a reason.

-----

When we accept the government can strip the rights of a citizen without due process

They do it all the time with less justification than this case has.

[ndt]

"An oath is a legal contract. If a person takes an oath, then violates it, it is a breach of that contract."

Read Post# 183 as kindly posted by daylate-dollarshort. The revocation is limited to misrepresentation on the application and in the case of not "adhering to the oath" is limited in time to it's applicability. That is a far cry from your statment "they permanently maintain the right to take it back."

"James Madison Federalist"

The Federalist papers are not law.

"Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry"

Private letters are not law.

"Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution"

Commentates are not law.

"St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries"

Ditto.

In fact I find it strange you did not post a single legal document as I specifically stated that there was no basis in law for your statement.

[MinuteGal]

Ship the whole freakin' family back to Paki. Very humanitarian.......they'll all be together again as a happy societal unit.

I'll be most happy to pay the .0000000000000000000003 cents increase for my tax dollar share of their fares.

I'll even throw in the cost to me for shipping to Pakistan their burnooses, burkhas, prayer rugs and those really cozy household calendars showing a passenger plane aimed at a NYC skyscraper.

Leni

[flada]

Agree completely. Love the screen name, btw.

[daylate-dollarshort]

"The revocation is limited to misrepresentation on the application and in the case of not "adhering to the oath" is limited in time to it's applicability."

I must say you are a glutton for punishment......

§ 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully

(a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship; or
(b) Whoever, whether for himself or another person not entitled thereto, knowingly issues, procures or obtains or applies for or otherwise attempts to procure or obtain naturalization, or citizenship, or a declaration of intention to become a citizen, or a certificate of arrival or any certificate or evidence of nationalization or citizenship, documentary or otherwise, or duplicates or copies of any of the foregoing—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.

(e) When a person shall be convicted under section 1425 of title 18 of the United States Code of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke, set aside, and declare void the final order admitting such person to citizenship, and shall declare the certificate of naturalization of such person to be canceled. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication.

[ndt]

"I must say you are a glutton for punishment......"

There is nothing in there that is contrary to what I said.

[Centurion2000]

If the FBI "connects the dots" and learns that these people are trained TERRORISTS, I don't think they need to be here. DO YOU? I'm not talking about attending a U.S. military training camp. I'm talking about learning to become a suicide bomber or IN FLIGHT airline "pilot." You might like these people living next door to you but I'll pass. I don't care if they are a U.S. citizen or not.

No I don't care to have them living here as well. My biggest fear is that we are setting a very dangerous precendent where a born citizen can be barred entry into his own country. I for one have no desire to ever see a cop being able to do that. Charging someone and putting them in jail for suspected terrorism is one thing. Denying them entry to the US is quite another. I apologize for attacking that with the idiot remark, but this is far too dangerous a precedent to set in my opnion.

[ndt]

"Charge him with treason and after conviction"

For doing what exactly?

[ndt]

You chose to post your reply as a private message. Since I asked you in public and since there is nothing here that you have not already stated publicly on this thread or that would be considered sensitive private information , I will assume that it was a mistake.

"Yes it does....it bypasses the time limitation you cited."

I never stated that there was a time limitation on losing it due to falsification of the application. There is a time limit on the governments power to remove the citizenship based on your actions after a valid and truthful application. That limit is 10 years for refusal to testify before congress and 5 years for affiliation with an organization that "which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 313"

"You don't seem to acknowlege that US citizens can lose their citizenship and be deported."

Because you can not deport a U.S. citizen. You can revoke citizenship under very specific situations at which point they are not a citizen. None of those situations are even alleged in this case.

"Convicted felons of any stripe can and do lose some citizenship rights."

Agreed and although I disagree with this, it is currently the law of the land. But again, there is not even the accusation that there has been a crime committed. If a crime has been committed they need to be brought to trial.

[freeangel]

I didn't realize that you could be out of the country for that long and pop back in. Isn't there something about having to return every so often?