Posted on 03/04/2019 11:02:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Somalia? Islam? Or merely as a photo op she can pose in front of the stars and stripes, then turn around and spit on the flag when the cameras are removed.
I once forgot how many foreign citizens are on the Detroit Tigers most years. They cart away our money (tickets and TV and radio shares going to the billionaire owner).
Once Carlos Guillen played in the international games and said: “It is so seldom I have the chance like this to do something for my country.” He of course meant VENEZUELA. It took a reporter to remind us of that. Venezuelan Miguel Cabrera (who recently was in court to try to reduce his meager paternity support payments to his illegitimate children from his mistress, while living with his wife, receives over the course of his long contract nearly half a BILLION dollars. Now 2-3 new deals for Bryce Harper and others make him look like a poor boy. He may have to pick up returnable bottles and cans to get money.
“The irony in her going out of her way to alienate fellow Democrats...”
The irony isn’t that. The irony is she herself has allegiance to a foreign nation - the caliphate.
Great comments.
You managed to show her good side indirectly because as a Dimocrat she is sinking the hopes of Dems getting moderates and undecideds to get on board.
She stinks, probably in more ways than one.
At k-12 public schools in MI they used to have educational sessions to show all children how to use bars of soap, wash cloths,changing clothes daily and doing a load of wash at home and so on. The Americans laughably knew it all, but it was astonishing for the immigrant Muslims to learn it. Fingers instead of toilet paper at home.
A elementary school teacher told me “We just had to do something. The kids smelled so horribly bad the others shunned them and we had to leave the room every few minutes or our eyes would water from the smell.”
Ocasio-Cortez ... Tlaib ... Omar
Not exactly sure how many things were in Pandora’s Box. But, I pretty sure that these 3 were in there.
The Left, Democratic Party, Democratic Leadership, Soros, w/ regards to the muslims-our insanely lax immigration and refugee policies, are to blame for all three of them. And they still have to ask for directions to find the women’s bathroom. Wait til they learn their way around a bit more and get to know some more folks. AOC is going to get all sorts of money from Soros and his ilk. While the Muslim Brotherhood, et al make sure that Tlaib and Omar have a never ending supply of money, as they establish a foothold in the Capitol and get more of their fellow muslim’s to DC.
A friend of my Wife said we should elect more women because there would be less drama than hot headed men.
Mmmm-kay.
In case anybody thinks Muslims can get along with anybody ever anywhere anytime...... They simply dont play well with others. They generally are belligerent, inconsiderate, abrasive, ill-mannered, hostile, unwilling to conform/assimilate in any country which is kind enough to take them in.
I pledge allegiance, to the Caliphate
of the United States of Allah
Something tells me she’s ok with being loyal to SOME foreign countries.
Look, my fellow Jews. Here you go. Don’t ever say “it can’t happen here.” My grandfather said it in Germany once. You know, before he was sent to the camp. It can happen anywhere.
Is a go fund me page to pay for her and the rest of those Africans who voted her into office a one way ticket back to their birth place $hithole out of order?
Part 1: I'll start with your basic thesis: Why should "a person should have to choose to which country their loyalty lies"? Take the simplest case: a child with an American mother and a Canadian father, who perhaps grows up in both countries (like Ted Cruz). Why should they be forced to pick one-country or the other and not enjoy citizenship in both?
Of course hopefully you are not suggesting that all countries should have citizenship laws that are the same, or dictated by the UN or something, so from an American perspective it really comes down to what the law in the USA is, and should be.
It would seem like a huge over-reach for the USA to attempt to strip citizenship of Americans who also happen to be citizens of other countries as a result of birth. That strikes me as sort of a fascist or Soviet style approach.
Now, in the case of citizens of other countries who are choosing to become American citizens (naturalize), that's a more interesting question. For years the naturalization oath has required people to renounce loyalty to other countries. It still does, here is the current oath:
"I 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."
SO: I'm not sure I agree with your basic assertion, that there should be no dual-citizens at all, but I do tend to think the Naturalization process which requires new citizens to voluntarily renouncie any former allegiance is a reasonable and good policy.
Part 2: Now I will give you some background on why accusing American Jews of being "dual citizens" is a uniquely obnoxious little anti-Semitic verbal tick.
Because of the unique experience of Jews in Europe and the founding of Israel all Jews worldwide enjoy the "law of return", meaning essentially instant and uncontestable citizenship in Israel, which can be claimed merely by showing up in Israel (and proving you are legitimately Jewish).
In other words Israel was designed, from it's modern inception in 1948, as a sanctuary home nation for all Jews, no matter where they may have been born. This was designed so that if something like local pogroms or even another Holocaust was ever attempted that Jews would have someplace to go to. (Something they did not have in WW2, which cost many millions of Jews their lives.)
Because the Jews were still oppressed in much of Europe and the Middle East after WW2, they formed this law with awareness of the nature of the continuing harassment of their people in foreign nations. It was common, when applying for certain jobs or positions in some Soviet-era Communist run countries, to require Jews to "renounce their Israeli citizenship". Obviously the Jews in Israel had been through all sorts of harassment did not appreciate this and as a result the State of Israel not acknowledge or honor any Jewish person renouncing their potential Jewish citizenship under the Right of Return. The feeling is that any such renunciation may have been coerced, and is ispo-facto invalid.
So, given these facts it is technically true that every Jewish politician in the USA is also eligible to live in Israel under the "Law of Return". And, slso, given Israel's unique laws there is no legal mechanism for them to renounce their right of citizenship under the Law of Return.
Therefore to go on and on about "dual citizens" in Congress, as the odious Representative Illan Omar is, that is merely a half-clever way of saying "Jewish members of Congress", it's a verbal tick used by Farrakhan, among other anti-Semites.
In many cases the Jewish members of Congress being accused of dual citizenship may never have been to Israel, may have no interest in ever going to Israel, and might even hate Israeli policy: but they still have the same rights as any other Jewish person in the world to go to Israel without a visa and live there. Technically they are "dual citizens" in some way.
So, there is some background on this you may not have been aware of.
See my post 30, above.
It's now quite common for new immigrants to re-apply for citizenship in their native country, and get a second passport after gaining American citizenship. I'm not sure I'm good with that, but then a lot of Americans may find that they need a sanctuary in the near future as the totalitarian darkness of Democratic Socialism descends on the USA. Who am I to say that people shouldn't have an escape hatch, given where we are headed?
Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth. Or, an individual having one nationality at birth may naturalize at a later date in another country and become a dual national.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. However, persons who acquire a foreign nationality after age 18 by applying for it may relinquish their U.S. nationality if they wish to do so. In order to relinquish U.S. nationality by virtue of naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality. Intent may be shown by the person’s statements and conduct.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality.
U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport to travel to or from a country other than the United States is not inconsistent with U.S. law.
Is her loyalty to the USA or Sharia?
Does she think Sharia is superior to the Constitution?
Of course nobody will ask.
But one person, two votes? No. It gives a foreign country a block of voters that can (and does) influence the other.
I can't find it on FR, but she also referred to Somalia as her country.
Her head rag works well as a strangulation device
Best not to have any muslims (SPIT!).
Even the Los Angeles Times had an editorial in 2014 suggesting that the millions of American dual-citizens was "problematic". Amazingly.
But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens — as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn't possess citizenship in those countries — witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make.I'm surprised that this was an editorial of the Editoral Board of the L.A. Times, but there it is....
But it's also true that dual citizenship undermines the common bond that unites U.S. citizens regardless of their ethnicity, religion or place of birth. Dual citizenship places a sort of asterisk next to the names of some U.S. citizens but not others.
...
Dual citizenship may have a place in American society, but the goal should be the cultivation of undivided Americans, proud of their heritage and committed to this nation.
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.