You havent been listening and simply repeat some anecdote
The law has been cited to you, twice+ (here and on the Canada thread). Protest and ignore the situation all you like, my comments are in accordance with that law, which has been cited +twice.
I'm still awaiting your evidence, btw, on the "10s of thousands" of people in your situation. Now that is unverifiable opinion (until you prove otherwise).
bzoo--
Actually I have fleshed out the law for you, given it historical context, and discussed the ramifications in other jurisdictions, and the dilemmas they pose to me in particular. You arent seeing it because you are myopic and a simpleton.
And I have already responded to your inquisitional doubts on the other thread. I have no more to add, if you dont. I realize you think your opinion is somehow God's truth,,, I can discern the difference and have no need to ask you to verify it since I already know you cant.
I realize you think your opinion is somehow God's truth
No, my statements are based on what the laws cites. Nothing more.
Your quest for sympathy by ignoring the facts is not doing well in this thread.
bzoo--
Renouncing is largely symbolic? Is that a legal opinion?
Although its there, there is no law or other provision requiring you to go through with it. It's a relic of antiquated circumstances.
No, my statements are what the laws cites. Nothing more.
Nothing more? You seem to forget your own statements. That's okay, I understand how people get caught up in their ego...
You ever heard of the strawman fallacy? You love to twist words, so it seems you should. I said my statements are "based on what the law cites," not "always exactly what the law cites."
For your example:
There is no law requiring you to officially renounce, even though it is in the oath. That is a fact. The "relic" comment has to do with the history of the oath, based on the fact that there is no law that requires you to renounce. (It used to be that foreign countries may not have had procedures to renounce, so the US added the statement to the oath, basically telling the other countries "it's good enough for us, accept it." But the laws have changed quite a bit in 100 years.)
And like I said before that, it doesn't apply to you anyway, since it's for naturalized+ citizens (which means it's a red herring). You are a +natural-born citizen, and have issues because of that.
Logic is not your strong point. That lawyer will pick you apart.
Only a couple more posts to 100....
Talk about twisting your words... lol... But basically you prove my point that the law is seriously flawed, unenforceable, contradictory across jurisdictions, and unequally applied -- and they know it. I am on the DHS radar but not in their gunsights and I expect, like the law, they are full of hot air and bluster as they use innocents to give a message to other governments. Carry on gentlemen, just leave me alone...
Legally, I am a Canadian citizen, period, and follow all laws from that perspective. And a lawyer who "picks me apart" is not my lawyer,, but one who is waiting for me to leave a paper trail that compromises my position. As long as I do nothing, declare nothing, swear nothing,, there is little they can do. IMHO. And if others are given a pass while I am persecuted,, my defense becomes even stronger. It is all very cut and dry.. But I am only a little guy against a Goliath -- a metaphor I hope predicts my outcome...
And like I said before that, it doesn't apply to you anyway, since it's for naturalized citizens (which means it's a red herring). You are a natural-born citizen, and have issues because of that. bzoo
You are wrong. I have already pointed out that there is an oath to receive a passport,, Nextra posted it. It is quite clear that if I take the oath I am compromising my Canadian citizenship,,, and I would literally have to lie in order to qualify for a US passport, a passport the DHS is coercing me to get....
Fine...
>Legally, I am a Canadian citizen, period
And legally, you are also an American. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can deal with it.
And the sooner you'd stop your pointless bitching here.
It is quite clear that if I take the oath I am compromising my Canadian citizenship
nutrax (btw, it is "nutrax," not "Nextra") noted that gaining a foreign passport does not automatically disqualify you from a US one. If you need further proof (because I can actually cite evidence), from the State Department:
>When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.
>If the answer to the question regarding intent to relinquish citizenship is yes , the person concerned will be asked to complete a questionnaire to ascertain his or her intent toward U.S. citizenship. When the questionnaire is completed and the voluntary relinquishment statement is signed by the expatriate, the consular officer will proceed to prepare a certificate of loss of nationality. The certificate will be forwarded to the Department of State for consideration and, if appropriate, approval.
>An individual who has performed any of the acts made potentially expatriating by statute who wishes to lose U.S. citizenship may do so by affirming in writing to a U.S. consular officer that the act was performed with an intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, a person always has the option of seeking to formally renounce U.S. citizenship abroad in accordance with Section 349 (a) (5) INA.
Long story short: if you had no intention to renounce, you say "no" and get your passport. If you did, you fill out a questionnaire to determine whether you get the passport or not.
Even if it is determined that you wish to renounce, you must still make the statement.
It's not the oath but the intent which decides your results. (Section 349 actually says you must intend to relinquish citizenship when you perform such actions in order to lose your citizenship.)