Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: patlin
It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship. (2) "In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation." Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967). (3) In 1868, Congress declared that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, 223 (1868); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1481 note (2000) (quoting R.S. § 1999) (same).

Well, geez, that already tells me that it has to do with Aliens and Nationality...the actual name of Title (USC) 8.

Congress provided specific legislative authority for nullifying citizenship when, in 1907, it enacted the predecessor of the modern federal expatriation statute. See Act of Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2534, 34 Stat. 1228 (1907). As the Supreme Court has noted, such acts of Congress "are to be read in the light of [Congress's 1868] declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 498-99 (1950).

This is coming from...@www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm the cached page

@Expatriation Act 1868 nullified (first link)
Also here...@8 U.S.C. § 1481 note (2000) (first link)

Do I need to continue?

155 posted on 02/06/2012 9:41:56 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: patlin
An interesting tidbit...
But see Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 498-99 (concluding that expatriation statutes "are to be read in the light of [Congress's 1868] declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed").
(emphasis in the original)
157 posted on 02/06/2012 9:49:04 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36
Do I need to continue?

If memory serves me correctly, the Afroyim v. Rusk case was about the govt who stripped a naturalized person of his citizenship due to a treasonous act, voting in a foreign nation. There was a time when allegiance meant allegiance to one nation and one nation only and one who came here, claimed allegiance to the US and then went and partook in the political rights of citizenship in their former nation, by that act, it was assumed they were not loyal to the United States thus they were stripped of their citizenship and rightly so. However, only the punishment (loss of citizenship) was changed, not the actual language of the 1868 Act that stated that under US law, one is to have but one loyalty & that is to the United States. And thus the reason the US State Dept to this day calls “dual citizenship” a “concept” and not a law, thus they have no legal right to protect a dual citizen when that person is in the country of their original citizenship, including babies born to aliens in the US should they get in trouble when in that foreign country. They are very clear on this subject at the US State Sept website.

The Expatriation Act is the foundation stone for the oath of allegiance ALL naturalized citizens must make before acquiring their official certificate of naturalization. If the 1868 Act is truly repealed, then the govt is illegally forcing naturalized citizens to renounce their former allegiances. I realize it is daunting and it took me 3 years of indepth study to get to the bottom of it all. But is is all there and according to US law, “jus soli” citizenship wherein a child is born a dual citizens is simply anathema to the US Constitution & the 14th Amendment.

161 posted on 02/06/2012 10:07:46 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson