On one of the first two or three pages after the picture page, it explains some rules. What does it say about joining the military of another nation? Does it list a penalty there? Any other germane details?

I can't find mine right now.

[b][u]LOSS OF NATIONALITY[/b][/u].  You may lose your U.S. nationality by being naturalized in, or by taking an oath or making a declaration of allegiance to, a foreign state; or by serving in the armed forces of or accepting employment under the government of a foreign state; or by making a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or concular officer of the United States while abroad.  For detailed information, consult the nearest embassy or consulate.

[b][u]DUAL NATIONALS[/b][/u].  A person is considered a dual national when he owes allegiance to more than one country at the same time.  A claim to allegiance may be based on facts of birth, marriage, parentage, or naturalization.  A dual national may, while in the jurisdiction of the other country which considers that person its national, be subjected to all of its laws, including being conscripted for military service.  Dual nationals who encounter problems should contact the nearest American embassy or consulate.

[b][u]LOSS OF NATIONALITY[/b][/u].  [b]You may lose your U.S. nationality by[/b] being naturalized in, or by taking an oath or making a declaration of allegiance to, a foreign state; or by [b]serving in the armed forces of or accepting employment under the government of a foreign state[/b]; or by making a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or concular officer of the United States while abroad.  For detailed information, consult the nearest embassy or consulate.


Thanks Zak. You da man.

Why are we bothering with John Tallywhacker? Drop-ship his ass back to Allfaaqedupistan and call it a day.

Page 4 Important Information
LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP. Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by perfoming any of the following acts...(3)serving in the armed forces of a foreign state...
For detailed information, consult the nearest American Embassy or Consulate, or contact the Office of Citizns Consular Services, Dept. of State, Washington, D.C. 20520-4818, or call (202)647-3444

hope this helps

Loss of Citizenship.  Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing any of the following acts: 1) being naturalized in a foreign state; 2)taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; 3)serving in the armed forces of a foreign state 4) accepting employment with a foreign government; or 5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas.

That is exactly what is stated.  Patrick

You MAY not Shall - what's the difference between nationality and citizenship?

Whoops, didn't realize everyone was whipping out their passports.

Pages 4&5, paragraph 8.

"Loss of U. S. Citizenship:  Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing, voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship, any of the following acts: (1) being naturalized in a foreign state; (2) taking an oath or making a declatation to a foreign state; (3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state; (4) accepting employment with a foreign government; or (5) formaly renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas."

Hey!  Here'a a little coda..."You may continue to have U.S. tax liability even it your lose U.S. nationality.

WRT dual citizenship...I don't think that is what you're after is it Jarhead?

If this is about Johnnie bin Laden...then para 3 may be applicable...but his lawyers will argue that the Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not nor were they ever a nation state.  The wording of this section needs to be changed to include any sort of terrorist organization.

Hun!  Where are you?  Let's get a lawyer to review this.

[;D]

Operative word is "may"...

How many Israeli-American dual citizens have lost their U.S. citizenship because they served in the IDF?

At least two people I went to college with were still considered U.S. citizens despite doing so.

I don't believe that the US allows any dual citizenships.  Anyone know for sure?

Yeah, what's the difference, if any, between nationality and citizenship?

Yes, I noticed the "may" bit, as well.  It's why I included the next section, which was dual nationality (the two paragraphs seemed mutually exclusive to me.)

As to the different between nationality and citizenship, I'm assuming it's because other people have newer passports than mine (mine is 10 years old--due for renewal in July, actually) which would also explain why the content of the paragraph in their is also a bit different [:)]

Don't remember the details but there was a Supreme Court case where it was decided that serving in the armed forces of another country was NOT grounds for losing citizenship.  Pretty much the only way you can lose your nationality/citizenship is if you renounce it formally at a US embassy or State department office.

The US allows dual citizenship.

My 75 year old dad was born in USA from UK parents. He holds both an American and UK passport.

The only restriction he faces is that he can not enter or leave the US on anything but his US passport.

Once he gets to Europe, for example, he travels on his UK passport and is a full EEC citizen which allows him to take consulting jobs thru out the Euro zone.

Handy!

Mike

When someone becomes naturalized as an American citizen, the U.S. requires that that person renounce other citizenships.

However, if someone is already (or automatically) an American citizen, and goes out and becomes a citizen of some other nation as well (marrying an Irish citizen, parent is a citizen of some other country which automatically grants citizenship to citizens' children, actually immigrates to another country and naturalizes there, &c.), that person doesn't necessarily have to renounce U.S. citizenship to take the other.

Also, even if someone renounces citizenship elsewhere, the other country might not recognize this as being the case.

Well, LA DEE FRICKIN' DA! Whatta we got here? Looks like Johnny freakin' Taliban, the Mullah of Marin, ain't even a US CITIZEN!

Let's go with Jarhead_22 and SHIP HIS SORRY ASS HOME to ASS-can-his-tan!

Then his whining, hand-wringing liberal Mom can go back to LIVING IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

PS this is my first post, I have 6 ARs, and I love this place - I've been hanging and posting here, and on the old site since 1998. I had to get a new handle cause I lost my old account. I like this one fine! [;D] No, I ain't McUzi, or Drew, or SteyerAug, or any of those. They are all...........

Rather than give you guys a long boring answer from the Hun, Esquire, I have called 'F. Lee' Levin, the Hun's personal attorney and counselor to explain to you this esoteric area of the law. Attached is his reply:

Eric. T. Hun, Esq.
*********
*********
Dallas, Texas

  Re: Your Inquiry Concerning 'Jihad' Johnny

Dear Mr. Hun:

Thank you for your recent letter. How are Miz Hun and the [i]kinder[/i]? Fine, I hope.

Here is my response to your inquiry.

The opponents of military commissions have argued that John Walker is a U.S. citizen, and therefore President Bush's military order doesn't apply to him. This point has even been repeated by Attorney General John Ashcroft and others who surely must know that Walker's U.S. citizenship can be challenged.

And Monday night on his MSNBC debut, Alan Keyes made the point that the separation-of-powers doctrine set forth in the Constitution is violated when the executive branch assumes judicial functions born from a war without an apparent end, such as the war on terrorism. Military commissions are objectionable, therefore, as they blur the lines between executive and judicial functions.

I'll respond seriatim. As to Attorney General Ashcroft's contention, the U.S. government had every reason to challenge Walker's citizenship, and it should have. Title 8, Section 1481 (a)(3)(A) of the United States Code states:

[b]A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality — entering into, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States ...[/b]

If Walker had been charged with renouncing his U.S. citizenship, Section 1481(b) provides, in relevant part:

... Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

The government's criminal complaint spells out in exquisite detail not only facts demonstrating Walker's conspiracy to kill Americans abroad, but the case for his renunciation of his citizenship. In fact, the same body of evidence the government has assembled to prove Walker's guilt would have demonstrated his renunciation.

- continued -

Eric The Hun, Esq.
- Page Two -

Of course, Walker has a defense, as mentioned above. For the government to concede that Walker remains a citizen, however, without even raising the issue in court, concedes too much. The man is a traitor who took up arms against Americans. If Walker wanted to mount a legal fight to retain his citizenship, and explain to a court and the public why he never intended to relinquish it, that would be a fight worth having and an argument worth hearing.

The government's decision to avoid this confrontation cannot be explained persuasively on legal grounds. It is, however, perfectly in line with the government's weakening resolve to use military commissions, so that if Walker is said to be a U.S. citizen, he's not subject to justice dispensed by military commission.

As for the argument by Mr. Keyes that the Constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine should preclude generally the use of military commissions, in this there can be no doubt. However, while the Constitution creates three separate branches of government, Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."

It is under this constitutional authority that Congress crafted the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is not part of the usual civilian-court system. Presidents have used the statutory authority set forth by Congress as the basis for establishing military commissions. If Congress concludes that the president has abused or misused this authority, it has the power to change the law. Thus far, it has not.

Article I, Section 8 also empowers Congress "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." For purposes of interpreting the Constitution, it is perfectly legitimate to equate yesterday's pirates with today's foreign terrorists.

Military commissions have been upheld as constitutional by earlier Supreme Courts. And despite the president's military order, which does not provide for judicial review by the Supreme Court of decisions made by his military commissions, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court retains the authority to review decisions by these inferior courts.

This should satisfy any questions which you may have regarding the legality of President Bush proceeding against either Mr. Walker or the remaining Taliban and/or Al Quaeda members that it presently has in custody abroad.

Thanking you for your kind attention to this matter, I remain

etc, etc.

Mr. Levin was kind enough to post his letter at: [url]
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin012302.shtml[/url]

Eric The(LegalBeagle)Hun[>]:)]

Well, just to play the dumbf*ck's advocate for a moment:
1) The U.S. never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.  Therefore, Johnny Walker never joined "the armed forces of foreign state".
2) At the time Walker did join, the Taliban's armed forces were not engaged in hostilities against the United States;  rather, they were engaging in hostilities with a group of Russia-backed terrorists named the "Northern Alliance".
3) There is no evidence that Walker ever fought any battles against American forces.  He probably did fight against proxy forces of the Northern Alliance.
4) Although present at a prison during an uprising which resulted in the death of an American CIA agent, there is no evidence that Walker participated in the uprising.  Indeed, considering his freely-given confession to just about every stupid act under the sun, his statement that he tried to run and hide when the prisoners rioted tends to be plausible, making him about as culpable for the CIA agent's death as a 7-11 customer is when a robber storms in.

Now, can we please just shoot him?

It was reported that when Jihad Johnny was captured, he was holding an AK.

Just his admitted participation in the riot is sufficient to constitute conspiracy.

If his confessions are admissible, then Jihad Johnny's in deep doo-doo (to use a legal term).

Eric The(Where'sMyWhoopAssStick?)Hun[>]:)]

Too bad we can't just SHOOT him!