TRSoL Introduces “News” Site
While TheRightSideOfLife.com domain has been and will continue to be a blog site devoted to commentary and opposition thoughts regarding such issues as eligibility, I have decided to branch out to a headline-oriented, single-page site:
This site will cover eligibility, States’ rights, tea parties, and various other stories of interest to myself and other readers. Since it is a single-page site, it will also be dramatically quicker to load into virtually any web browser and will be updated far more frequently than this blog will be.
News.TheRightSideOfLife.com won’t contain commentary like a blog, because it’s not a blog. In fact, as links historically “decay,” they will be archived over at NewsArchive.TheRightSideOfLife.com, so nothing will be “lost” from the one-pager site.
The second advantage to this site is my ability to create web documents for numerous emails I receive from concerned citizens. I’ve received many of these types of emails over the past year and haven’t been able to create blog postings on most, simply because I like giving as much due diligence as possible to everything I post.
Towards the bottom of the right column is a free-form text field where completely anonymous notes can be sent to me (there’s a “Thank You” page produced after “tips” are sent confirming that I record nothing from whatever web browser is sending the note).
Thanks again for everyone’s readership!
Oh, yes, and one more thing: I think you’ll love my main headliner article on the news site. Sky News is reporting that the “paper copy” of Obama’s birth was destroyed by fire. Go to News.TheRightSideOfLife.com for my “flashback” quotes that seem to contradict this claim by a major news organization.
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
38 responses to TRSoL Introduces “News” Site
“The second advantage to this site is my ability to create web documents for numerous emails I receive from concerned citizens. I’ve received many of these types of emails over the past year and haven’t been able to create blog postings on most, simply because I like giving as much due diligence as possible to everything I post.”
Wow. And no one will be allowed to question whether these “concerned citizen’s emails” are factual or not. Interesting. Due Diligence? Not so much…….
Sue,
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
“And no one will be allowed to question…” Again, you pull absolutely non-sensical arguments completely out of your butthole. If only you could come up with relevant, meaningful rebuttals, we could have a serious conversation.
What do you think having a completely anonymous “tip” submission form is all about? Heck, I even have my email plastered in obviously explicit ways for folks to contact me. Interesting how you’ve never taken advantage of such communication tools.
I guess it’s that trust issue, ever since I went back to moderating my site. And considering that there were quite a few great dissenting conversations that were had at that time, it’s amazing how –now that I’ve gone back to moderating — some in the opposition now distrust me.
I suppose it makes sense: just as there’s no evidence to know for sure that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, there is no evidence that says that I have been doing anything substantially differently with commentary now than I have in the past.
And the opposition thinks folks like me are strange…
-Phil
I love it! Thanks Phil!
Dave
Dave S,
Excellent. It’s always a group effort.
-Phil
Phil, I like it!
Sue,
Have you thought about trying out for the “Real Housewives of Kuala Lumpur”?
Real Housewives of Kuala Lumpur
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Benaiah
Phil,
“What do you think having a completely anonymous “tip” submission form is all about? Heck, I even have my email plastered in obviously explicit ways for folks to contact me. Interesting how you’ve never taken advantage of such communication tools.”
I publish my “tip” to you in the comment section. I use my real name and you know my email address. Why would I need to send you an anonymous tip?
Sue,
While I do not expect you, per se, to be intellectually honest and humble enough to admit anything, I’ll go ahead and respond to this comment for the benefit of other readers.
If you have no problems posting commentary here and don’t want to use any sort of “tip” line, then what has this entire short thread been all about?
Again, no need to answer; the question obviously answers itself, for those who have seen you in action around here.
-Phil
Phil,
Good luck with the new format. I’ll continue to follow your site and articles. It seems to me that Sue has this uncontrollable need to control things. She sounds like a real peach. I like the anonymous tip line idea, you may get some valuable info this way. Again good luck!
Reality Checkmate,
The “tip” line has been great, absolutely. While I don’t post everything I receive, it’s great to hear from readers.
Thanks for the good will. It’s always a group effort.
-Phil
http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2010/02/birther-wants-black-helicopter-world.html
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Birther Wants Black Helicopter World Government to Protect Her From….?????Black Helicopter World Government People
ACORN is cleared AGAIN. This makes three times.
NYDaily News:
B’klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution
BY Scott Shifrel
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, March 1st 2010, 4:10 PM
“Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.
While the video by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.
“They edited the tape to meet their agenda,” said the source.[...]”
Remainder:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crim … z0gxvUk4eO
After a 4 month long investigation this is what was released:
“On Sept. 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees,” Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said in a one-paragraph statement issued Monday afternoon.
“That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found.”
What does that mean. That the intent was there but no actual laws were broken. The investigator said nothing about tape editing. I don’t know how the tapes could have been edited to change what these people said. But if you want to defend pedophilic tax cheats that’s your right.
Golly gee.
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/
Charles Hynes, the investigator, was endorsed by the Working Families Party. And who are they? From Wikipedia:
“New York’s Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups such as Citizen Action of New York. The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism. The party’s main issue concerns are jobs, health care, education and energy/environment. It has usually cross-endorsed Democratic or Republican candidates through fusion voting, but has occasionally run its own candidates.”
Most of the same language can be found at the Working Families Party site, minus the ACORN connection. But of course! Somebody must have forgotten to scrub Wikipedia after the ACORN scandal broke.
So we have a man endorsed by this party, which was organized by and in coalition with ACORN, investigating ACORN. Being held “accountable” by them, too. From their site: “And it [fusion voting] lets third parties like the WFP demonstrate support for the issues we’re fighting for. When votes on the WFP’s ballot line help a candidate we’ve endorsed win, we can hold that politician accountable to working people. Big business has plenty of money and power. Fusion helps us even the score.” Interesting concept–fusion voting.
Can somebody say “conflict of interest?” One wonders if they were donors, too?
btw, Breitbart says there are more tapes, which will be released at a time and place of his choosing, since there seems to be not much interest in justice regarding this issue at the Justice Dept.
Congrats! The new site is awesome & I’ll bet your like a kid in a candy store!
Don’t worry about us, we’ll get over our sadness but it just won’t be the same without your much valued commentary on the topics.
Throw us a bone once in a while would ya?
Regards,
Linda
Sue says:
March 2, 2010 at 12:34 pm
ACORN is cleared AGAIN. This makes three times.
____________________________________________________________________
Sue, actually it is even more interesting than that. Even Breitbart, who was pushing the whole so called “ACORN scandal” has even walked back his comments and basically thrown O’Keefe under the bus….So to recap every so called criminal investigation regarding the issues that were highlighted found no criminal behavior by the ACORN employees. The so called evidence, the tapes were selectively edited and the entire tape was never released. So in other words there was no criminal action and it is difficult to determine “intent” because the evidence by O’Keefe and Giles was doctored. No wonder Breitbart is trying to distance himself from this.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003020039
Breitbart walks back claims of “criminality” by ACORN
In a March 2 Twitter post, Breitbart wrote:
ACORN tapes were less about ‘criminality’ than facility with which employees all knew how to work system for any lowlife wanting govmnt $.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003020001
“It turns out that Andrew Breitbart didn’t actually know what was on the ACORN tapes when he helped launch them on his website last year, and used the videos to fuel his oddly personal crusade against the low-income advocacy organization.
That’s right — Breitbart didn’t know what was on the tapes. Take a few seconds to let the implications of that confession sink in, and what it means to Breitbart’s already dented credibility.
Recall that for months Breitbart personally vouched for the ACORN videos, braying loudly that they could not be ignored and that they represented the unvarnished truth. Breitbart claimed he had told “the truth” every step of the way about the controversial ACORN clips and bragged that “[t]hroughout the ACORN story I applied my conscience to the material.”
But now it turns out that Breitbart was fooled by the ACORN pimp hoax and mistakenly assumed, after watching deceptively edited clips from his protégé James O’Keefe, that O’Keefe strolled into ACORN offices wearing the outlandish pimp outfit.
Now Breitbart, the chief promoter of the ACORN sting, claims he “didn’t know” the truth about the tapes. Although he’s quick to insist it doesn’t really matter anyway.
And yes, that sound you hear is Breitbart throwing O’Keefe under the bus. Because it’s O’Keefe who Breitbart now blames for the “discrepancy” regarding the pimp hoax. It’s O’Keefe, who Breitbart once touted as a should-be Pulitzer Prize winner, who created the false impression that he walked into ACORN offices last summer dressed as a garish pimp.
In a video interview posted Monday at Crooks and Liars, Stark Reports, as well as The Brad Blog, Breitbart, filmed by blogger Mike Stark at the recent CPAC convention, claims he did not know the facts about O’Keefe’s pimp outfit. (See video below.)
Essentially, Breitbart claims he was duped like everyone else who saw the ACORN clips created by O’Keefe. He was duped because at the outset, the misleading clips contain cut-away shots filmed outdoors, which feature O’Keefe decked out in the cane-fur-sunglasses pimp costume. (Breitbart deceptively refers to the dressed-as-pimp section as the “title sequence” of the videos, but it’s really much more than that.)”
Linda,
Thanks for the kind words. I think I’m also finally settling on a decent WYSIWYG HTML editor as well.
Not to worry — when there are issues that I think deserve more attention, I’ll certainly be posting on them. After all, we can’t let the opposition commenters off the hook, now, can we? They have to have some place to vent!
-Phil
Black Lion: Methinks you greatly mischaracterize whatever it is that you read into Breitbart’s comments. That’s no surprise because it’s legend on this blog for certain persons in the, shall we say, “he’s eligible” camp to put words into someone else’s mouth, thoughts into his head, and even motivation into his heart. I heard Breitbart speak just yesterday. Again, he said there are more tapes to be released at a time and place of his choosing.
More about the Working Families Party: Did you catch the part about how it was based upon the New Party? Who are they? Why, a “socialist democratic” party, a bunch of progressives, if you want to put it mildly. Others describe them as Marxist and even Communist. Here’s a link for some insight:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913
MGB says:
March 4, 2010 at 9:39 am
Black Lion: Methinks you greatly mischaracterize whatever it is that you read into Breitbart’s comments. That’s no surprise because it’s legend on this blog for certain persons in the, shall we say, “he’s eligible” camp to put words into someone else’s mouth, thoughts into his head, and even motivation into his heart. I heard Breitbart speak just yesterday. Again, he said there are more tapes to be released at a time and place of his choosing.
_________________________________________________________________
MGB, it is possible to mischaracterize. Especially when Breitbart has said different things regarding this issue. However keep in mind he has been saying the line about more tapes being released for about 4 months now and we have not seen anything yet. And he did say that he did not review the tapes O’Keefe made before releasing them. That is a quote and me not “putting words in his mouth.” If he did not review the tapes before releasing them then he made a huge mistake. Either way he reluctance to release the unedited copies of the tapes makes you wonder. If he had some real evidence of wrongdoing on the part of ACORN he would have released the tapes unedited for all to see or given the unedited tapes to law enforecment. He did neither, which leads most people to believe that he is hiding something.
Breitbart’s story has changed once already regarding the so called “pimp” outfit. O’Keefe never went into any ACORN offices dressed as a pimp. That was staged outside for people to believe that and think that is how he engaged the ACORN employees. Breitbart at one time advanced that claim and has had to walk that back once evidence was found that contradicted him.
Now is it your implication that somehow Charles Hynes, who has been Brooklyn DA for many years failed to investigate due to him somehow being endorsed by some small third party that ACORN was affiliated? If so that is a stretch. There are numerous so called third parties. There is even a Communist party. No one takes any of these so called parties seriously.
Lets us remember that all of the criminal investigations initiated as a result of the tapes have turned up no evidence of any wrongdoing. But O’Keefe and Breitbart refuse to release the complete unedited tapes. Why not. All sides should advocate that the unedited tapes be released. Then we could see what really happened. That is unless O’Keefe and Breitbart are hiding something? Where is the call for “full disclosure” in this instance?
“GOP’s Deficit Crusade Faces Opposition From Fiscal Hawks
Experts Say Jobs Should Be Current Focus
By Mike Lillis 3/4/10 6:00 AM
[Please post comments only with complete links, thankyouverymuch]
Black Lion: Breitbart’s waiting for the most opportune time to release the tapes. He’s giving Holder a chance to address the corruption. Anybody who saw those pimp tapes knows that O’Keefe wasn’t wearing that outfit in the ACORN office. What matters is what the employees did to try to help James and Hannah get taxpayer money. No amount of editing can change the words those people spoke. Spin it all you want. I’d like to see the unedited tapes, too. Perhaps in time we will. Wait and see.
Oops. If ACORN tapes aren’t about “criminality,” then why has Breitbart been demanding criminal investigations?
March 04, 2010 12:29 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Simple question. Can Andrew Breitbart provide a simple answer?
Following the news that New York prosecutors had become the latest outside investigators to find no criminal wrongdoing on the part of ACORN, Breitbart, in face-saving mode, abruptly threw this attack machine into reverse and announced that his beloved undercover ACORN tapes “were less about ‘criminality’ than facility with which employees all knew how to work the system for any lowlife wanting government $.”
So back to my very simple question. If the ACORN crusade is not about “criminality,” then why has Breitbart been demanding that the U.S. Department of Justice launch a criminal investigation into ACORN?
I mean, who can forget Breitbart’s comical Fox News appearance last November, when he made his brash, tough-guy challenge [emphasis added]:
Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
Everyone got the message. Even RedState:
Breitbart to Eric Holder: Investigate ACORN, or else. Yes, it’s a threat.
But suddenly Breitbart has changed his tune and announced that his unhinged ACORN crusade was never about “criminality.”
Except that, of course, it was.
UPDATED: Just this week Breitbart’s Big Government site demanded a criminal investigation into ACORN’s California practices. Even though, this isn’t really about “criminality.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003040021
It seems like the more Breitbart speaks the more he contradicts himself. The bottom line is that if there was so much criminal behavior by ACORN on the tapes, why hasn’t he released the unedited copies to the press and to the various law enforcement agencies? If he has proof of a crime, by not releasing the tapes in their entirety isn’t Breitbart making himself complicit in this alleged criminal behavior? Some interesting questions have arisen from this so called ACORN scandal. I guess we will have to wait to see if the tapes are ever released to know for sure what really happened…
Black Lion says:
March 4, 2010 at 11:08 am
If he had some real evidence of wrong doing on the part of ACORN he would have released the tapes unedited for all to see or given the unedited tapes to law enforecment. He did neither, which leads most people to believe that he is hiding something.
———
I can’t tell you how pleased I am that you have come around to the ‘birther’ way of thinking when it comes to someone not releasing something for all to see or turning the unedited full original over to the legal authorities. That is certainly suspicious behavior and would lead most people to believe that he is hiding something. I might add that suspicions aroused by such behavior are perfectly justified and not an indication of some kind of kooky conspiracy thinking.
The Texas Governor race should prove to be interesting.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/rick-perry-bill-white-texas-governor.html
Perry vs. White in Texas governor’s race: New poll says it’s close
Speaking for myself (and at least theOriginalist and MGB), bring on the unedited tapes!
A couple of links:
1. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201388.php
(a teapartier who just doesn’t fit the Kos model)
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s (near the end of the video)
“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Gates- Obama supporter
And there are those who wonder why the fear … But, perhaps the video was edited?
I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a dual citizen is ineligible to be a White House Fellow because the applicant could not get the proper security clearance, yet a dual citizen is eligible to run for President according to the opposition?
———-
From the other thread:
sharon2 says:
February 28, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Wouldn’t the following negate the argument that the POTUS is permitted to be a dual citizen? I am speaking generically as I don’t think Obama is a dual citizen now (how dual citizenship at birth affects the NBC remains a separate issue).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows/faq#10
11. Can I be a White House Fellow if I have dual citizenship?
In order to get the proper security clearance for the Fellowship, individuals with dual citizenship would need to give up any non-U.S. citizenship(s). White House Fellows can be citizens only of the United States.
________________
Sue tried to sidetrack the argument with “I have seen no credible evidence that Obama is a dual citizen,” completely ignoring my comment.
There is a clear conflict here in eligibility requirements. If the standard is relaxed for Fellow applicants because the conflict is highlighted by an applicant with dual citizenship, would security clearance suddenly NOT be a concern?
Orly does not appear to be getting off to a very good start in her bid for SOS.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/repub-secretary-of-state-candi/
Orly Taitz Slings Mud at Republican Opponent for Secretary of StateBy Spencer Kornhaber, Thursday, Mar. 4 2010 @ 5:34PM
sharon2 says:
March 5, 2010 at 9:05 am
I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a dual citizen is ineligible to be a White House Fellow because the applicant could not get the proper security clearance, yet a dual citizen is eligible to run for President according to the opposition?
———-
From the other thread:
sharon2 says:
February 28, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Wouldn’t the following negate the argument that the POTUS is permitted to be a dual citizen? I am speaking generically as I don’t think Obama is a dual citizen now (how dual citizenship at birth affects the NBC remains a separate issue).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows/faq#10
11. Can I be a White House Fellow if I have dual citizenship?
In order to get the proper security clearance for the Fellowship, individuals with dual citizenship would need to give up any non-U.S. citizenship(s). White House Fellows can be citizens only of the United States.
________________
Sue tried to sidetrack the argument with “I have seen no credible evidence that Obama is a dual citizen,” completely ignoring my comment.
There is a clear conflict here in eligibility requirements. If the standard is relaxed for Fellow applicants because the conflict is highlighted by an applicant with dual citizenship, would security clearance suddenly NOT be a concern?
__________________________________________________________________
Simple, because the job of President is spelled out in the Constitution. And no where in the Constitution is it stated that a so called “dual citizen” is ineligible to be President. So there is no conflict. The “fellow” job requirements were decided on by the White House. The President’s was decided on by the Constitution.
Secondly there is and has never been any proof provided that President Obama is currently a dual citizen or was at the time he ran for President. His so called British citizenship was tenious at best and his Kenyan citizenship expired at the age of 23. So unless someone can provide some proof that he has affirmed citizenship to another country the fact remians that he is an American citizen.
So there is no conflict or security concerns. He has been a citizen of only the US for over 20 years and was born in the US. So there is no legal or security issues. The so called Pest and Fail “fails” with this manfactured controversy….There is nothing to see here….
Sharon2,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows/faq#10
“11. Can I be a White House Fellow if I have dual citizenship?
In order to get the proper security clearance for the Fellowship, individuals with dual citizenship would need to give up any non-U.S. citizenship(s). White House Fellows can be citizens only of the United States.
________________
Sue tried to sidetrack the argument with “I have seen no credible evidence that Obama is a dual citizen,” completely ignoring my comment.
There is a clear conflict here in eligibility requirements. If the standard is relaxed for Fellow applicants because the conflict is highlighted by an applicant with dual citizenship, would security clearance suddenly NOT be a concern?”
IANAL, but I believe #11. is a rule, rather than a Constitutional requirement, statute or law. However, if you can cite in the Constitution or cite a law/statute that prohibits Fellow applicants from being dual citizens, please do so.
I repeat my previous comment: There is no credible evidence, admissible in a court of law that President Obama is a dual citizen.
http://www.newcitizen.us/dual.html
Dual Citizenship
BTW, wouldn’t Henry Kissinger have had high level security clearance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/dual_nationality.html
What about Madeleine Albright?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
BL demonstrates the same comprehesnion as Sue. I specifically said that I was speaking generically, that I don’t think Obama is currently a dual citizen (this is the kind of thing that gets reported back to Obama Conspiracy Theories- “They’re saying that old argument that Obama is a dual citizen” and the crux of the argument is omiited.) There is a clear conflict concerning eligibility: the President (generically speaking) is permitted to be a dual citizen (according to the opposition), but a Fellow at the White House is not. That is a conflict. The Fellow applicant is subjected to more stringent reuqirements than a presidential candidate (and therefore president) is, according to the opposition’s view of the eligbility clause. You can’t get around that argument.
Sharon2,
“BL demonstrates the same comprehesnion as Sue. I specifically said that I was speaking generically, that I don’t think Obama is currently a dual citizen (this is the kind of thing that gets reported back to Obama Conspiracy Theories- “They’re saying that old argument that Obama is a dual citizen” and the crux of the argument is omiited.) There is a clear conflict concerning eligibility: the President (generically speaking) is permitted to be a dual citizen (according to the opposition), but a Fellow at the White House is not. That is a conflict. The Fellow applicant is subjected to more stringent reuqirements than a presidential candidate (and therefore president) is, according to the opposition’s view of the eligbility clause. You can’t get around that argument.”
Does being rude or sarcastic improve your comment. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they do much for my comments.
Actually, there is no mention in the Constitution if the President can or cannot be a dual citizen. Nothing, unless you can find something. However, there have been several Presidents/VP who were. If you want more stringent requirements for presidential candidates, you need to take it up with your representatives in Congress.
You might want to call and find out specifically what they mean when they say a Fellow applicant cannot be a dual citizen.
Sue,
You responding to the issue concerning Obama currently being a dual citizen does nothing to advance the discussion because I clearly stated that I don’t believe he is now a dual citizen. It was not in some kind of “birther” code.
(He was a dual citizen at birth.)
“Actually, there is no mention in the Constitution if the President can or cannot be a dual citizen.” Agreed.
“You might want to call and find out specifically what they mean when they say a Fellow applicant cannot be a dual citizen.”
This what is set forth in the FAQ:
“In order to get the proper security clearance for the Fellowship, individuals with dual citizenship would need to give up any non-U.S. citizenship(s).”
I myself don’t need a further explanation.
I just scanned the comment of Who Are You Kidding? on the other thread so I withdraw the statement that Obama was a dual citizen at birth pending further reflection. The rest of my comment stands.
Sharon2,
““You might want to call and find out specifically what they mean when they say a Fellow applicant cannot be a dual citizen.”
This what is set forth in the FAQ:
“In order to get the proper security clearance for the Fellowship, individuals with dual citizenship would need to give up any non-U.S. citizenship(s).”
I myself don’t need a further explanation.”
I do. There are many people in the US who are eligible to obtain dual citizenship but do not ever act on that eligibility for various reasons, one being they are not aware of their eligibility. Therefore, clarification of the above would be useful.
Sharon2,
I contacted the White House Fellows Program today and spoke with a young man named Michael. Contact info:
Contact Us
Web Address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fellows
Telephone: (202) 395-4522
Facsimile: (202) 395-6179
I specifically asked him if someone was born in US but one or both of his/her parents were Canadian citizens but that person had never applied for or obtained Canadian dual citizenship, be required to give up “dual citizenship”. His response was “how can someone give up something they never had?”
The point is that while someone may be “eligible” to obtain dual citizenship, that person has to apply for, prove and actually obtain dual citizenship. Canada being just one example.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/index.asp
“If you were born outside Canada, you get a citizenship certificate when you become a Canadian citizen.
“If you were born outside Canada and one of your parents was a Canadian citizen when you were born, you need to apply for a citizenship certificate to prove you are a Canadian citizen.”
On April 17, 2009, the law changed for people born outside Canada. It limits Canadian citizenship to the first generation of children born outside Canada to Canadian citizens. This means:
a child born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generation after the new law comes into effect will not become a Canadian citizen automatically at birth, and
a person born in the second or subsequent generation outside Canada before the new law comes into effect and who is not already a citizen will not become a citizen under the new law.
However, no one who is a citizen when the new law comes into force will lose citizenship as a result of the new law.
Find out more about the new law and who is affected.”
http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-dual.htm
“3. Do Foreign Citizenship Oaths Strip you of Previous Citizenships?
In general, no, although some countries (such as the US but not Canada or Australia) have verbal oaths that state that all former citizenships are relinquished, there are few (if any) modern cases in which this has happened to dual citizens. Most citizenship oaths are historical and have little legal power. “In general, most countries that allow dual citizenship require very specific acts for you to relinquish your citizenship, and routine verbal oaths delivered in a foreign country are rarely considered valid.” Marc Rich (of Clinton pardon fame) is one of the well-known cases (Action and Deltamar v. Rich, 951 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)). Rich assumed an oath in Spain would remove his US citizenship. The Spanish naturalization oath he took included an explicit renunciation of US citizenship. Due to a variety of circumstances the court judged that he was still a US citizen. The US State Department’s position is:
The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that US citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to routine declarations of allegiance to a foreign state, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government. Both the Australian and Canadian citizenship oaths do not require giving up previous citizenships. The renunciatory language in the Canadian naturalization oath was ruled illegal by a Canadian court in 1973 on technical grounds and was subsequently removed. The Australian Oath of Allegiance became a Pledge of Commitment in 1994. The Citizenship Council recommended in February 2000 that the pledge remain unchanged and the Government stated in May 2001 that it accepted this recommendation. The Pledge reads:
From this time forward, under God
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose Democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect,
and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
New Citizens can choose to take the pledge in the form of an oath, which includes the words ‘under God’, or in the form of an affirmation, which does not.”
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Rich
Action and Deltamar v. Rich, 951 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)
““3. Do Foreign Citizenship Oaths Strip you of Previous Citizenships?”
I don’t know what that has to do with already having dual citizenship. Whether someone is a dual citizen at birth depends upon laws/treaties. If an applicant for a fellowship at the White House is a dual citizen of some country, then that person would have to voluntarily give up citizenship; that person would not be stripped of it.
It sounds like Canada is adopting a “birther” view of citizenship, wouldn’t you say? I wonder why. I thought Canada was such a progressive country. Perhaps the health care system is too overloaded.
Sharon2,
“It sounds like Canada is adopting a “birther” view of citizenship, wouldn’t you say? I wonder why. I thought Canada was such a progressive country. Perhaps the health care system is too overloaded.”
And, what exactly do you base your opinion on?
Sharon2,
“It sounds like Canada is adopting a “birther” view of citizenship, wouldn’t you say?”
No, I would not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law#Birth_in_Canada
Birth in Canada
In general, anyone born in Canada from 1947 onwards acquired Canadian citizenship at birth. The only exceptions concern children born to diplomats, where additional requirements apply.
Most persons born in Canada before 1947 acquired Canadian citizenship on 1 January 1947 if still living at that date.
The immigration status of the parents at the time of the Canadian citizenship child’s birth is not relevant to the child’s eligibility for Canadian citizenship. A child born in Canada to two illegal alien parents would still be considered a Canadian citizen. However, Section 3(2) of the Current Act contains an exception to the above rule, at least for persons born in Canada after February 15, 1977. It states that Canadian citizenship is not granted to a child born in Canada if, at the time of his/her birth, neither of his/her parents was a Canadian citizen or “Canadian permanent resident” and either parent was a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee of a foreign government in Canada or an employee of such a person.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_resident_(Canada)
“A Permanent Resident in Canada is someone who is not a Canadian citizen but who has been granted permission to live and work in Canada without any time limit on his or her stay. A permanent resident must live in Canada for two years out of every five or risk losing that status.
A Permanent Resident holds many of the same rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen, among others the right to work for any enterprise as well as for the federal or provincial government (under restriction of access rights to certain regulated professions). The main differences are that residents cannot vote in federal, provincial or municipal elections in Canada, run for elected office or hold Canadian passports. They also cannot join Canada’s armed forces, and risk deportation for serious crimes committed while resident in Canada.
Permanent residents may apply for Canadian citizenship after three years in Canada, however this is not mandatory.[1]“