• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

SLC said:
My bad we allow over 1,000,000 legal immigrations and about 740,000 naturalizations a year to the US? BTW have you ever been to a US naturalization ceremony...its very inspiring.
Click to expand...

Having no need to be naturalized as an Amereican, I must admit that I have not.
 
OscarLevant said:
That has not been the accepted practice. No way will Scotus go with Trump. The accepted practice has been to grant citizenship to those born here, except those whose parents are diplomats, which is what "subject to" means.

If birthright citizenship is removed, then there are many who live here and have been citizens for a long time, including many in power or related to those in power, whose citizenship will have to be repealed, and that is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Ex post facto laws would seem to apply. Nobody is losing citizenship should birthright citizenship be eliminated.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
IF one accepts that the Constitution of the United States of America puts "naturalization" into the hands of the Legislative Branch (which it does), AND IF one extends that so that it means that "citizenship" falls under the rubric "naturalization" wouldn't that mean that ONLY Congress could make such a change?

Or do you support changing the governmental structure of the United States of America so that nine people who have been appointed and who hold office for life have total control over what the government can and cannot do?
Click to expand...

It should be Congresss.

However-- Trumps argument seems to be based upon the upheld travel ban. That was upheld because Congress has authorised the president to restrict people from countries who the president judged represrnted a danger to the USA.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Having no need to be naturalized as an Amereican, I must admit that I have not.
Click to expand...
They did it every 2-3 months in the Federal court my wife worked in for over 30 years. I attended a couple. The Federal Judge my wife worked for gave an inspiring speech. Several new citizens cried.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ex post facto laws would seem to apply. Nobody is losing citizenship should birthright citizenship be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Since no new law would be passed if the Supreme Court ruled that what the 14th "actually meant" was that (at least one of) the parents had to be an American citizen, then there would be no ex post facto law.

People would have received a benefit because of a mistake of law on the part of the government and would have to return that benefit.

At most they would not have to "return it retroactively" (which would eliminate the "fun" issue of the legality of all American elections since the passage of the 14th).

However that would still leave the "fun" task of sorting out who actually was, and was not, CURRENTLY an American citizen because to determine that you would actually have to go back to the date that the 14th was passed (and that would mean that everyone would have to produce five generations worth of birth records [even the Nazis only required three]).
 
SLC said:
They did it every 2-3 months in the Federal court my wife worked in for over 30 years. I attended a couple. The Federal Judge my wife worked for gave an inspiring speech. Several new citizens cried.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
However, arguing that "Illegal Aliens" are NOT under the jurisdiction of the government of the United States of America carries the necessary resultant that they would NOT be governed by the laws of the United States of America either.

You simply cannot be "half pregnant".
Click to expand...
What you are failing to understand is that the term does not just mean one thing (subject to our laws).
We have the framers of the 14th, in the Official Congressional record, telling us exactly what the terminology they used meant.

We have a later Legal Opinion by the Atty Gen agreeing with the Framers of the 14th in that, that is how it should be enforced.


TU Curmudgeon said:
NOTICE

You are hereby fined 100 CyberPoints for using actual facts in an Internet "debate".

You are hereby fined a further 100,000 CyberPoints for using actual facts that are actually relevant in an Internet "debate".

You are hereby fined a further 100,000,000 CyberPoints by actually providing an actual cite to the actual facts that are actually relevant in an Interned "debate".

The continuation of such behaviour will not be tolerated by the Internet Debate Investigatatory Organization Trust System and any repetition will mean that you will have to surrender all of your electrons.
Click to expand...
:lamo The person used irrelevant facts.
While the person certainly did use factual information, it is irrelevant as the Constitution is not beholden to legislation unless the Constitution specifically gives such power to Congress.


TU Curmudgeon said:
The problem with EXCLUDING a group from the jurisdiction of a government is that that exclusion is total and that means that the government cannot then enforce its own laws upon that group.
Click to expand...
Your argumentation is wrong headed, as that is not what the Framers of the 14th said the language meant.





Unitedwestand13 said:
So that means illegal immigrants on u.s soil are subject to U.s jurisdiction and Jus soli is in effect?
Click to expand...
No, because the meaning of the terminology used does not mean just subject to our laws, as the Framers of the 14th clearly stated in the Official Record.
 
ClaraD said:
Um, this is false...if we didn't have jurisdiction over them, we could not arrest them, we could not charge them with crimes, etc....if you live here sans diplomatic status, you are subject to our jurisdiction...this is why by law they are required to pay taxes here...thus the ITIN.
Click to expand...
You are operating off of a wrong interpretation of the language used.
The Framers of the 14th, in the Official Congressional Record tell us exactly what the terminology they used means. It does not mean simply subject to our laws. It means "not owing allegiance to anybody else".
If you want to argue that the Court may not choose to go with that, fine, do so, but you can not logically argue that it means something other than what the authors say it meant.


ClaraD said:
Doesn't Congress have the authority over defining that law? They did...and there is nothing in the Constitution that makes the definition of everyone in the US under the jurisdiction....
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
Congress has no authority of defining what the language used in the Constitution means unless the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power. Such as the power over naturalization that the Constitution gave to Congress, hence the various Immigration and Nationality Acts that have been passed.

In this case Congress, Trump, and/or the Atty Gen can define it for purposes of enforcement until/unless the SCt decides otherwise, and they can decide however they want. They can go with the original intent as provided by the Framers of the 14th, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else" or they can go with today's common interpretation, just subject to our laws.


ClaraD said:
are you really going to argue that ? I already posted for you where it has been defined in our law as anyone living inside the US with the exception of diplomats...

Anyone who is subject to the jurisidiction is subject to our laws....and even illegal immigrants are subject to our laws.
Click to expand...
iLOL No.
You cited legislation.
The Constitution is not beholden to legislation unless specifically authorized.
So no, it takes a SCt decision.
The Court can certainly decide to follow the same wording of the legislation's definition, or they can choose to go with original intent as already provided.
But any decision they make will be on how the terminology will be defined going forward, but can not change the original intent of it's meaning.


We have a past Attorney General who's legal Opinion indicating that it was known that it meant exactly what the Framers of the 14th said it meant, is used as an annotation for our Federal Statutes.

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

Federal Statutes Annotated: Containing All the Laws of the United ..., Volume 11
1918(Link)​


ClaraD said:
do you really think it wise to make illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
Click to expand...
Did anyone say that? Or did they tell you that the framers of the 14th's language said it meant that it means "not owing allegiance to anybody else"?
 
Can a illegal alien be tried for Treason under our laws? No

A British citizen female traveling in the US cannot be tried for Treason. Therefore she isn't under US jurisdiction for Treason. [Neither are illegal aliens] but you are saying if she has a child on our soil that child is a citizen?

Here is what Dr. John Eastman says about birthright citizenship:

Dr. John Eastman
Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service
Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Dale E. Fowler School of Law

He teaches constitutional law and Clerked for Justice Thomas on the SCOTUS.


Birthright Citizenship

Imagine a British citizen who visits the United States on a tourist visa. While here, he must comply with U.S. laws (or face the consequences). He must drive on the right side of the road rather than the left, for example. But he is not subject to our military draft, and he cannot be tried for treason if he takes up arms against us. He owes us no allegiance, but is subject only to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. while he remains present within our borders.
Click to expand...

Also Foreign National cannot run for office

And they also can't

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

•Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;

•Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);

•Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;

•Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Click to expand...
 
Curmudgeon is afraid to answer the following questions because he knows they destroy his argument.

Between 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed and 1924 when the Snyder Act was passed were Native Americans:

1. Subject to jurisdiction of American Law? Yes / No
2. Were they members of Foreign nations? Yes /No
3. Were they given birthright Citizenship if they were born on or off the reservation? Yes/ No
4. Was a specific Act of Congress required in 1924 to grant them citizenship? Yes/ No
5. Were Native Americans during that time under less jurisdiction of American Laws than illegal aliens are today? Yes/ No
 
Excon said:
What you are failing to understand is that the term does not just mean one thing (subject to our laws).
We have the framers of the 14th, in the Official Congressional record, telling us exactly what the terminology they used meant.

We have a later Legal Opinion by the Atty Gen agreeing with the Framers of the 14th in that, that is how it should be enforced.



:lamo The person used irrelevant facts.
While the person certainly did use factual information, it is irrelevant as the Constitution is not beholden to legislation unless the Constitution specifically gives such power to Congress.


Your argumentation is wrong headed, as that is not what the Framers of the 14th said the language meant.






No, because the meaning of the terminology used does not mean just subject to our laws, as the Framers of the 14th clearly stated in the Official Record.
Click to expand...

If what was enforced were the laws that were "intended" to be passed rather than the laws that were actually passed, I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately that is not the case and it is even less the case that what is enforced are the laws that someone else says were the laws that were intended to be passed were intended to be.
 
SLC said:
Curmudgeon is afraid to answer the following questions because he knows they destroy his argument.

Between 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed and 1924 when the Snyder Act was passed were Native Americans:

1. Subject to jurisdiction of American Law? Yes / No
2. Were they members of Foreign nations? Yes /No
3. Were they given birthright Citizenship if they were born on or off the reservation? Yes/ No
4. Was a specific Act of Congress required in 1924 to grant them citizenship? Yes/ No
5. Were Native Americans during that time under less jurisdiction of American Laws than illegal aliens are today? Yes/ No
Click to expand...

Since I have answered exactly those questions (which you keep as a handy C&P) in this thread (Post 872 made on 18 NOV 18 at 1814) your statement is a blatant falsehood, and you are a person who deliberately and knowingly makes false statements.

I don't know why you persist in deliberately and knowingly making false statements, but I have absolutely no interest in wasting time retyping my answers - especially for a person who has exhibited a distinct predilection for ignoring both the law and reality.

PS - You do know that DP has a rather good search facility so that people can look up the posts that they have already made and cross-reference them (even if those posts are in different threads) don't you?

PPS - Anyone whose mental facilities have degenerated to the point that they cannot remember things that happened three days ago has my utmost sympathy and if it IS the case that your mental facilities have degenerated to the point where you cannot remember things that happened three days ago, I'm more than willing to withdraw the "deliberately and knowingly" and will do so immediately upon you confirming that you cannot remember things which happened three days ago. Absent your confirmation of senile decay, the words stand.
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
If what was enforced were the laws that were "intended" to be passed rather than the laws that were actually passed, I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately that is not the case and it is even less the case that what is enforced are the laws that someone else says were the laws that were intended to be passed were intended to be.
Click to expand...
What you are suggesting (what was intended not being passed) is not the case.
What was intended is what was passed.
The Framers of the 14th laid out exactly what the language they used meant and it is that language that was passed.


The Court has already recognized that the word "jurisdiction" has meany meanings, so they have to ascertain what was meant by it's usage. In this case we have the Official record telling us exactly what the 14th's use of "jurisdiction" means.
And as was already shown, a previous Atty Gen already acknowledge that is the meaning of the language used.

So the only argument you have is that the Court may ignore and invalidate the actual meaning of it's use (original intent) in favor of another. But such a decision will not change the intent of the language used.
 
Plus Ultra said:
I'm not certain one can seek asylum based on the claim one's government can't protect one from gang violence.
Click to expand...

One can SEEK asylum based on any reason whatsoever, the question is whether or not the country that one is seeking asylum will grant it for the reason given.

Plus Ultra said:
I know this is what is claimed of the Central Americans making their way in caravans across Mexico, but it isn't that clear current treaties and conventions extend refugee status to those with a well-founded fear of persecution absent any government involvement.
Click to expand...

Making a "refugee" claim and seeking "asylum" are not quite the same thing - despite the fact that the media tends to conflate them.

Plus Ultra said:
Every year Mexico deports tens of thousands of Central Americans who illegally enter that country, most of them openly acknowledge they're just on their way to the US.
Click to expand...

If those people are not seeking asylum in Mexico, then Mexico can deport them for whatever reason the Mexican government feels like using - the Mexican government can also allow those people to "transit" Mexico for whatever reason the Mexican government feels like using.

Plus Ultra said:
I believe Mexico has some sort of "humanitarian transit permit", think its what the UN refugee convention calls a "travel document", they give these out to Central Americans credibly found to have this well-founded fear of persecution. Mexican authorities believe about 300,000 Central Americans annually cross Mexico on their way to the US, last year they caught and deported about 80,000.
Click to expand...

A country can allow anyone it feels like allowing to do so to travel through its territory for whatever reason that that country's government feels like allowing them to do so.

Plus Ultra said:
I oppose the expansion of the right to claim asylum, don't think this should apply to groups of any sort, believe the UN and capable members who've ratified international conventions protecting human rights should be obligated to intervene against governments persecuting groups based on what sustains an individual's asylum claim.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that you support the UN becoming a world government that has the power to direct countries to "amend" their laws so that they conform to some sort of a "global" code (much as the US government has the power to direct States to "amend" their laws so that they conform to a "national" code)?

Plus Ultra said:
I accept that war will justify a group claim for asylum and that this would obligate the neighboring states to shelter those fleeing, at least until the conflict ends. Certainly don't agree with the notion people fleeing poverty should be recognized as refugees.
Click to expand...

If the ONLY difference between "Country A" and "Country B" were the "level of wealth" then not very many countries would grant a request for "asylum" or accept a "refugee" claim.

Quite frankly, in my own opinion, they'd be rather stupid to do so.

However, if the difference in "level of wealth" was such that the claimants were not able to live their lives free of persecution (whether from the government or from elements that the government could not control) that would be a different matter entirely.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
One can SEEK asylum based on any reason whatsoever, the question is whether or not the country that one is seeking asylum will grant it for the reason given.
Click to expand...

Based on the bolded, not true....Here is what the treaty says:

"Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[4] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

1. Persecution in their home country has generally been interpreted as being persecution from the government...

2. Particular Social Group -

"As the most ambiguous and open-ended of the categories, the PSG category has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy in refugee law.[1][2] Note that just as with the other four categories, membership in a PSG is not sufficient grounds for being granted refugee status."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particular_social_group

So there ya go....These people are NOT "refugees"
 
SLC said:
... But whether or not they uphold the EO isn't as important as them ruling on the issue of who and who is not illegible for birthright citizenship. The EO is a way to get that issue before the SC.
Click to expand...

A very valid point.

What remains at issue, however, is whether "the people" will accept what the Supreme Court decides.

A problem does arise, should the Supreme Court rule that simply being born within the bounds of the United States of America does NOT automatically confer citizenship, and that problem is "Does that ruling take effect from the moment the decision is handed down, or does that ruling take effect retroactively?".

If that decision takes effect retroactively (i.e. the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution of the United States of America NEVER granted citizenship simply because the person was born within the bounds of the United States of America) then the citizenship status of literally millions of Americans would be called into question.

If that decision does not take effect retroactively (i.e. the Supreme Court rules that simply being born within the bounds of the United States of America NO LONGER automatically confers American citizenship on the person) then that would mean that the Supreme Court has "made law" - which is something that all of the opponents of "judicial activism" (most recently the "Conservatives") have long decried.

The "best" solution (from one point of view) would be for the Supreme Court to rule that simply being born within the bounds of the United States of America, absent a constitutional amendment to provide otherwise, does now, and always has, automatically confers American citizenship. That solution is also the simplest and least disruptive.

The "best" solution (from another point of view) would be a Constitutional Amendment which specifies that, from the moment of ratification onward, simply being born within the bounds of the United States of America does NOT automatically confer American citizenship (and which CLEARLY sets out what criteria have to be met in order to be a "natural born" citizen of the United States of America).

The "worst" solution (from any point of view) would be for the Supreme Court to rule that it is now acting as an "activist court" and retroactively changing what American citizenship actually is and how it is/was acquired thus tossing the American electorate into a mire where EVERY American has to "prove" that they are the child of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, who were themselves children of ONLY American citizens, right back to the date of the foundation of the United States of America.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Can you establish the governments of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua are either involved in or unable to control the persecution by private actors of their asylum-claiming citizens?
Click to expand...

Since I am neither applying for "refugee/asylum" status nor the legal representative of those who are, I don't have to.

Plus Ultra said:
I think this is unclear.
Click to expand...

That's why there are "Immigration Judges".

Plus Ultra said:
I know many who support mass migration from Central America claim Honduras has the highest homicide rate in the Western Hemisphere, does this prove the government there is involved or unable to control this?
Click to expand...

I would rather suspect that where the crime rate is high, a good case can be made out that "The government cannot control the crime rate." since that is supposed to be one of the things that governments are established to do.

Plus Ultra said:
What about the other Central American countries? I haven't seen anything indicating these Central American governments are actually persecuting their citizens, but the notion they are unable to control private actors is plausible, is that enough?
Click to expand...

Let's clear up a bit of confusion here.

A "refugee" is fleeing some major event be it a natural disaster or a war. An "asylee" is fleeing a PERSONAL situation and, in fact, might be the only person in their country that that situation affects.

Plus Ultra said:
Is there a right to asylum if it is just plausible the applicant's government is unable to control the persecution of its citizens?
Click to expand...

Nope. For example the "Hereditary Supreme Ruler and Dictator of Bananastan" who controls the entirety of the police and military of their country, would NOT be able to make a SUCCESSFUL claim for asylum anywhere (as long as the Bananastanese hadn't organized a coup and tossed him out of office). However a Bananastani against whom the "Hereditary Supreme Ruler and Dictator of Bananastan" had conceived a personal animus would.

Plus Ultra said:
I presume the Mexican immigration authorities apply the same standards everyone else does, and that those it deports are unable to sustain the claim they have a well-founded fear of persecution if deported, you don't?
Click to expand...

Even if the person being deported from Mexico COULD "sustain the claim that they have a well-founded fear of persecution if deported" then the Mexican government has the perfect right to "deny entry" if that person is NOT making a claim for asylum (or for refugee status) from the Mexican government. A person who simply shows up at the Mexican border wishing to travel through Mexico to attend to some business in some other country is neither making a claim for asylum nor claiming refugee status FROM THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT - regardless of whether they are going to make such a claim from some other government.

Plus Ultra said:
No I think it is actually what the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention calls a "travel document".
Click to expand...

I suspect that you are correct, and there is no obligation on any country to issue those. If a Mexican citizen showed up at the US/Mexico border and told the CBP people that they were "only" going to travel through the US in order to make a claim for asylum at the US/Canada border, then the CBP people would have to determine if that person should be admitted to the United States of America and, if that request for admission was declined, then the person either leaves the US voluntarily or simply gets deported if they refuse to leave voluntarily.

Plus Ultra said:
"Those" (the ones Mexico does not deport) are probably mostly people it didn't catch, migrants who crossed illegally into Mexico, some who may have bribed the Mexican authorities or which though caught were released for other reasons (pity, indolence, inability to hold and process their deportation...).
Click to expand...

Possibly.
 
Plus Ultra said:
We don't know how many make it to the US/Mexican border, but I suspect quite a few do since last year there were 130,000 applications for asylum as refugees in the US from Hondurans alone, then there are those who get to the border, cross it, and never make an application.
Click to expand...

You are quite correct that the US government has no accurate count of those who sneak into the US - which really shouldn't surprise anyone.

Plus Ultra said:
No, I think those were war refugees, there's no war in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua or El Salvador.
Click to expand...

At the time that the passengers on the SS St. Louis were attempting to claim asylum in American (and Canada) there was no war in Europe either.

Plus Ultra said:
"World Government"? I think the signatories of the international conventions on Refugees who are obliged to provide them shelter, can and should sensibly demand and take action against other signatories when the volume of people fleeing passes some threshold.
Click to expand...

In other words, you favour the establishment of "a body with the power to compel obedience, using force if necessary" which is pretty much what a government is - isn't it?

Plus Ultra said:
No, your's is a compound question, fleeing poverty alone does not obligate any government to provide asylum, fleeing poverty caused from oppression probably would because the oppression would suffice, fleeing poverty caused by the government's inability to adequately control private actors is much more nuanced.
Click to expand...

And there is the nub of the issue "nuanced" - which is something that those who advocate simplistic solutions don't want to discuss.
 
OscarLevant said:
It's a matter for Scotus, it if goes down to that, and methinks they will go with the accepted tradition in America, which is to grant anyone citizenship if they are born in America unless they are the children of diplomats.
Click to expand...

You raise an interesting point and that is "citizenship of a state".

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America states


The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
​

and that carries the clear meaning that a person CAN be a "citizen" of a "state". Since the Constitution of the United States of America does NOT deal with how a person BECOMES a "citizen" of a "state" and since the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
​

that means that each of the several states has the constitutional right, and legal capacity, to establish their own laws as to how a person becomes a citizen of that state, and since the 14th Amendment includes


... are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside
​

the concept of "state citizenship" is even more firmly established.

Taken to its extremes, a state could (theoretically) limit "state citizenship" to "White, Christian, Males owning, free and clear of all encumbrances, real property to the aggregate value of $1,000,000". That, of course, would have no effect on whether someone who did NOT qualify for "state citizenship" qualified for "American citizenship".

However, if a state (again theoretically) limited "state citizenship" to "anyone who wanted to claim citizenship in the state of __[fill in the blank]__" then an arguable case could be made that that, automatically, qualified that person for "American citizenship" because they would be a "federal citizen" due to the fact that they were a "state citizen".

Of such thoughts are great legal bills made.
 
OscarLevant said:
Not if they declare under oath and swear their allegiance to the US. What do you think an asylum seeker will declare, hmmm?
Click to expand...

In that case, one does wonder how to determine what "allegiance" a person has, doesn't one?

Would simply saying "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." suffice?

If it wouldn't, then how could someone who does NOT "bear allegiance" to the United States of America commit "Treason" since that is something that ONLY a citizen can commit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom