Posted on 04/23/2013 12:06:54 PM PDT by Nachum
What I provided was the statute law of the United States.
Well, your last statement is the crux of the problem, and where we disagree.
I can distinguish between natural born and naturalized citizenship. I abolutely do not want the Government thinking it can circumvent the rights of natural born citizens. I am not going to let the naturalization of Terrorists and a mis-handling of the terrorist threat, give them the environment to do so.
I do not view it as “revokation” of citizenship to acknowledge that the oath of citizenship has been clearly violated by actions for which a person will be charged, and to decide at that time, the correct time, BEFORE a trial, the correct manner in which to treat someone who has been naturalized.
It has become popular in our culture to have a “Law and Order” view of the Law. One in which the letter of the Law is used, time and time again, to circumvent its intent. Laughably, this is referred to as “Rule of Law”, or being a “Nation of Laws”, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Agree. It's more in the nature of an annulment in such a case.
I was beginning to type a giant reply, but perhaps I can just say that I understand and sympathize completely with the “Slippery Slope” argument.
To hopefully answer your question. Yes, I would like the Government (a Judge) to be able to determine that naturalized citizens HAVE ALREADY INVALIDATED THEIR OATH AND THEREFORE US CITIZENSHIP by participating in an attack on the US. This would be BEFORE any Criminal Trial, as this determination is necessary to decide if a criminal trial is even appropriate. It would be what I would accept as “due process” for naturalized citizens. EC status could be decided by as little as a Clear Intention to Attack the US, and the overwhelming expectation in the view of the Judge that the person involved was part of the attack. So, with your case, (and all the hypotheticals) there would need to be Intention to Attack, maybe some kind of coordinated stockpiling or actual use of the powder.
I think the point is that an EC has the resources of a foreign power that is beyond the power and scope of US Criminal Law. With a naturalized citizen, the existance of the foreign power is, I consider, a given. All that is necessary is the Attack.
My point is that these guys are here, now, and perhaps at the intention of the less patriotic in Government. If we don’t treat them like what they are, and frankly what the law requires, we will fail to stop them, and to such a degree that people will be lining up to surrender their rights to the Government to feel safe. It will be more of a “Cliff” than a “Slope”.
I don’t see how a natural born citizen can have his citizenship revoked. He was born nowhere else. Who would you pretend he belongs too?
Well, I appreciate your discussion on this.
I think I can tell that I will not, in fact, get my way. The Boston Bomber is on his way to an Obama-hate-America circus trial, and the Saudis are disappearing into the woodwork to get ready to try again. The wrong response leads to failure, and failure to a loss of freedoms for all of us in the coming chaos. The house-to-house “search” for #2 was chilling.
I didn’t mean to be flippant. I don’t see how you can decide that someone wasn’t born where they were, but I do see how you can decide that someone has not kept their oath of allegiance.
What I find most disturbing is the beyond-reckless manner that immigrants like the Marathon Bombers have been brought into the country. Its almost like the Government has something in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.