Posted on 11/28/2003 4:43:19 PM PST by Jalapeno
You can bet she does not pledge allegience to the United States.
Some people claim that all immigrants from Mexico are Conservative, family oriented, only coming here to work, future Republicans. Obviously this is an example that some are out to destroy the USA and massive immigration is one of their tools.
I've never heard that ridiculous claim. Has anyone at this forum suggested that?
Many.
Yes, I've been wondering which city he would be going on to plunder and pillage next. Houston was about the third in that line.
Good question and since the woman is a left wing Stalinista freak I have no sympathies for her.
That being said, the Republican Party individual she allegedly assaulted is an extremely shady, crude, and abrasive character who ranks somewhere on the overall scale of human decency between used car salesmen and the lawyer who runs those "don't trust the company doctor" 3AM TV commercials.
Though I do not know the circumstances of this event, I will hypothesize that the case does not merit assault charges. I could easily see Jiminez entering the party office with a chip on her shoulder and being met by Koenning, with an equally large chip on his own shoulder. She likely approached him in a rude and confrontational manner, to which he likely responded in kind, thus prompting her to thrust the box of letters in his direction. Though rude, her action probably wasn't criminal assault except for in the most liberal constructions of the law (i.e. the same standards by which brushing past somebody who is blocking a doorway is "assault"). In any case it will be difficult to prove the charges, meaning the case will get thrown out on technicalities before the trial even completes thereby embarrassing the "Republican Party" for what will be percieved as the "frivolous" accusations of one of its public representatives.
She probably won't. The thing is in the Houston municipal courts. The "judges" there (especially since the Lee P. Brown administration) are practically all incompetant affirmative action cases with virtually no credentials to be in a courtroom. The law does not even require them to be attorneys, and many of them aren't. Those few who are often hail from Texas Southern University law school - aka the place where they give multiple choice exams to aspiring "lawyers" who couldn't get into a real law school.
The Oath of AllegianceI hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
so help me God.
Or to cast this in a less favorable light, she named her daughter after a COMMUNIST dictator who killed more people than Adolph Hitler and who was a role model for Saddam Hussein.
"The United States does not recognize "dual citizenship" for naturalized citizens."
Sorry to have to correct you, but the US just does not place any such restriction on naturalized US citizens. For several years now, as part of my research for various articles that I have written for Action America, that sometimes relate to this issue, I have become very familiar with this subject and I can assure you that there are many naturalized citizens in the United States, who still legally hold citizenship in the country of their birth, under the laws of both countries.
There is a lot of confusion about this issue and it depends upon the laws of both of the countries involved. If such a restriction were placed on a naturalized citizen of the US, it would be because of the laws of the country of his birth (ex: Communist China, North Korea and Japan, who do not recognize dual citizenship) and not US law. If the laws of the birth country of the naturalized US citizen allow dual citizenship, then there is no requirement for the naturalized US citizen to give up his other citizenship. (Obviously, when a third or fourth country is involved, this complicates matters.)
The misleading statement in the Oath of Allegiance, only serves to muddy an already confusing matter, as it would lead an uninformed reader to believe that giving up one's previous citizenship was a requirement for naturalization. However, the law makes no such requirement and in fact, is mum on the subject.
The US State Department web site (http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html) has this to say, as part of their official statement on the subject of "Dual Nationality (Citizenship)":
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.
Furthermore, as a result of a 1998 Mexican law, their citizens do not have to give up their Mexican citizenship, if they should become US citizens. Regardless of whether you think this is right or wrong, it's a fact that we have to live with, until such time as the law is changed.
BTW, certain types of lobbying on behalf of and under the instruction of a foreign power (paid or unpaid), against the interests of the United States, has been ruled, in certain rare cases, as an act that expressed an "intention to give up U.S. citizenship." I imagine that the judge that you get and the severity of the actual actions that you took, would make a difference in that case. At any rate, such an act, if proved, is grounds for losing one's citizenship, even if you were born here. That's why Johnny Taliban's (John Walker's) taking up arms to fight against US troops can easily be said to have been an act taken with the "intention to give up U.S. citizenship". In most cases, proving intent is difficult. But, taking up arms for a foreign power, against the United States, is a pretty clear sign of intent.
But, there is no US law requiring naturalized citizens to renounce their previous citizenship(s).
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.