I don't think dual citizenship applies to your kids -
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-12-02
In Reply to: my children are citizens - Shelly
Not being ugly, my daughter was born in Germany too, but I never heard that she had dual citizenship. She was born on a military base and that made her an American.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Dual (or not) citizenship
I have a cousin who was born in England at a US military base hospital and she is indeed a US Citizen with no dual citizenship
Dual citizenship is not a crime. It's a privilege.
Repeat one GOOD reason?
REAL Americans don't recognize dual citizenship.
nm
why would he have to apply for citizenship? He never denounced his citizenship...
x
I wonder if this applies to....... sm
folks who live in mobile homes. I bought my doublewide almost 13 years ago not anticipating that I would shortly be a divorced mom with a mortgage along with all the bills previously paid on both our incomes. I could afford the house at the time, but it is getting harder with each passing day and it doesn't take much of an emergency for me to have to miss making a mortgage payment. I play catchup all the time and with the rising cost of utilities and groceries, I'm barely treading water.
this applies also to you...I do not care
if O received his Islamic teachings BEFORE or after he attended the CATHOLIC school hours!
Tolerance applies except to the Christian right
then the gloves are off. Christians are not to be tolerated unless they are willing to *embrace* not just *tolerate* other views and/or lifestyles.
my post above applies also to your comment..
The flag outside the building shows enough patriotism, and I am sure that there are office policies.
Something interesting re Eliot Spitzer. It applies to now. sm
Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
Must be not. Double standard applies. Crickets.
/
Too bad the cap only applies to TARP funded CEOs.
ANY CEO should be making more salary than the POTUS and that any compensation beyond that amount should be directly related to the success of the company, i.e. commissions, profit percentage, stock dividends, etc. I also believe stockholders should have more control of their salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other perks.
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
Even if he could prove citizenship, which he
a citizen once he was adopted by the Indonesian stepfather. Once a child is adopted by someone from another country, they cannot claim citizenship to that country any longer, even if they were born there.
He has yet to produce immigration papers which show he applied for citizenship to this country, just like any "illegal" would have to do.
NOT TRUE. No one can take your US citizenship from you
.
Citizenship argument...another red herring on
Get over yourself.
Obama has never denounced his citizenship
as it relates to his citizenship to the country of Indonesia or denounced his citizenship as it relates to the country of Kenya.
He cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing his birth in Hawaii but he does have a "vault" (original) long version of a birth certificate in Kenya.
Interesting as to what he does have and what he can't produce.
He lost his citizenship upon adoption by his
nm
He had the right to accept his Kenyan citizenship... sm
at age 21 and since he didn't, it expired. Hence his only citizenship is his American citizenship.
Because he had no citizenship to denounce in the first place. sm
Go back and read the post. Indonesia, at the time that Obama lived there, did not recognize dual citizenship, therefore nullifying his supposed US citizenship. In order to attend school in Indonesia, he had to be a citizen of the country and he was made a citizen of that country by the adoption of his stepfather. His school card in the link below lists him as an Indonesian citizen and his religion as Muslim.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656
I am no expert but....it has something to do with "dual citizenship." sm
My best friend's husband was a Dutch citizen. (He has since been naturalized). They have 3 children. The kids could claim both Dutch and American citizenship up until the age of 18. Then they had to make a choice of which citizenship to renounce. Now that was back in the 80's so things may have changed since then. Not sure if this explains it or not.
Bottom line, no one can renounce the citizenship...sm
of an American citizen, period, whether they are adopted by a noncitizen or not. Obama had the right to claim Nigerian citizenship at age 21 but did not.
Interesting post regarding US Citizenship on another board...
Not true at all, even if your parent is a us citizen, if you are born in another country, you are a us citizen, but you are forever disqualified from running for president. This does not apply to military bases and diplomats. That is the law. My boss happens to have been born in canada to us citizens working there at the time. Took him 3 years to be able to get a passport to leave the us on vacation and yes they notified him he could never run for president. That is the difference between being a us citizen and a naturalized us citizen.
I believe it is also the same for anyone whom has ever claimed citizenship outside of the us, once you claim citizenship anywhere else, you are disqualified from running for president.
I don't tihnk a BC proof of citizenship is stupid.
Let the "stupid crap" go on until it is cleared up. I'm sick of hearing it, too, but I'll be dang if I want someone who is not a citizen to run our country. I want to know the truth and, so far, that truth isn't there. Too much secrecy (sp?) to warm my toes. It opens a whole 'nother can of worms if he is not a citizen, yet becomes president anyway.
It would mean a constitutional rule struck down and, (I shudder to think of this) even terrorists could run our country if they so desire and could pay off people who's vote count. Gee, do you want Chevez or Putnin to run our country? How about Ayers or Wright?
I'm just pointing out a few things here. There's too many question as why this was not resolved and why, all of a sudden, his records in Hawaii were sealed or whatever, after he went to "visit his sick grandmother."
Truth is all I want and I don't have it yet. But I will let the SC decide (if they weren't bribed) and then, I will embrace the O as a president until he screws up which, eventually, he will. He's coming off as "too perfect". There is no one "perfect" in my eyes.
pays her own kids way? I think that Alaska pays her kids way! nm
x
It does not matter if he has quadruple citizenship was born on Pluto,
any other fool notion you can come up with. Obama is a citizen of the United States and no number of lawsuits, appeals, attorneys or McC camp supporters is going to change that. These ridiculous distractions have rendered the rest of this campaign down to the level of a technical moot point. When you are in a hole (as the wise SP has pointed out), the first thing you do is to stop digging. However, you guys have managed to run the clock so far down, that there is really no way out by this time. Congratulations on your failed campaign. Cut your losses, go back to the drawing board, decide what you need to be doing for your fractured party and try to figure out what you will be doing in 2012 about your leadership vacuum. The citizenship issue is a dead end. Believe it or not. Nobody cares because it poses no threat whatsoever to Obama if you continue to rale about this until h@ll freezes over.
Not true, No one can give up the citizenship of a child who is a US citizen. nm
.
Immigration attys probable grasp basic citizenship concepts.
rasberries
What the Indonesian govt requires for adoption, citizenship, religious affiliation
anything else is of NO CONCERN to the US govt when it comes to recognizing or preserving citizenship status of a natural born US citizen. Check the constitution. Check the State Department website. Check the immigration law statutes and stop making a complete idjit of yourself. You have been hanging in the fringe chat rooms too long. His citizenship was not renounced. I am sure his parents jumped through whatever hoops they needed to in order to live in the country and enroll their child in school, much the same way my own daughter is doing with her child while living in a Moslem country in the Middle East. They hold passports from there AND American passports and do not have to immigrate back to the country of their origin. The US govt turns a blind eye to this and preserves the integrity of its natural born folks. My God, you are a dense one, aren't you?
His Kids
I know the "C" story is true. As far as the kids go, he has 7 from what I understand. Two boys in the military and 1 or 2 adopted kids. I stated an opinion about his daughters because any man that would disrespect women the way he has (letting "H" be called the "B" word, laughing and not speaking against it, and then calling his wife a "C" publically), has no respect for women (which include his daughters). Then he comes out with this fake persona that he respects women and he welcomes their vote. Please --- anything to win.
We really would not have know about the kids other than
Palin herself putting them before the public like she did, kept the smaller 1 out of school and people questioned as to why they were not in school. Oh, now it is ne're-do-well beau. I remember what a warm reception he got from John welcoming him into the circle. All white trash, both sides.
Now really, kids!!
I think a lot of it has to do with the attempt to incite violence. While Olberman, Maddow, and the MSNBC crew may be left of center, they don't incite violence. Nor do I think Hannity falls into that category, either. Rush, Rev. Phelps, and Michael Savage are names that immediately pop into my head on the conservative end that seem to like to stir up crap. On the other side, I really wish we could find a way to export Sharpton, but I doubt any other country wants him anymore than I do.
Of course, WE are the country that denied Cat Stevens entrance, too, so I guess we can't get too holier than thou about Britain's keeping out the rabble rousers.
Kids - this is funny.
When Vífill Atlason, a 16-year-old high school student from Iceland, decided to call the White House, he could not imagine the kind of publicity it would bring.
Introducing himself as Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, the actual president of Iceland, Atlason found President George W. Bush's allegedly secret telephone number and phoned, requesting a private meeting with him.
"I just wanted to talk to him, have a chat, invite him to Iceland and see what he'd say," Vífill told ABC News.
A White House official, who asked not to be identified, denied the young man had accessed a private number but instead dialled 202-456-1414, the main switchboard for the West Wing.
Vífill's mother, Harpa Hreinsdottir, a teacher at the local high school, said her son did, in fact, get through to a private phone.
"This was not a switchboard number of any kind," she told ABC News, "it was a secret number at the highest security level."
Vífill claims he was passed on to several people, each of them quizzing him on President Grímsson's date of birth, where he grew up, who his parents were and the date he entered office.
"It was like passing through checkpoints," he said. "But I had Wikipedia and a few other sites open, so it was not so difficult really."
When he finally got through to President Bush's secretary, Vífill alleges he was told to expect a call back from Bush.
"She told me the president was not available at the time, but that she would mark it in his schedule to call me back on Monday evening," he said.
Instead, the police showed up at his home in Akranes, a fishing town about 48 kilometers from Reykjavik, and took him to the local police station, where they questioned the 16-year-old for several hours.
"The police chief said they were under orders from U.S. officials to "find the leak" -- that I had to tell them where I had found the number," he said. "Otherwise, I would be banned from ever entering the United States."
Vífill claims he cannot remember where he got the number.
"I just know I have had it for a few years," he told ABC. "I must have gotten it from a friend when I was about 11 or 12."
Atlason's mother Harpa, who was not home at the time, said she was shocked to find her son had been taken away by the police but could not quite bring herself to be angry with her son.
"He's very resourceful you know," she said. "He has become a bit of a hero in Iceland. Bush is very unpopular here."
Vífill was eventually released into his parent's custody, and no charges have been brought against the high school student.
When ABC verified the number, it was the Secret Service Uniform Division, which handles security for the president.
"If the number were not top secret, why would the police have told me that I will be put on a no-fly list to America?" Vífill asked.
"I don't see how calling the White House is a crime," he added. "But obviously, they took it very seriously."
Calls to the Secret Service press office were not returned.
Maybe the kind that has 3 kids
already and the 4th pregnancy could put her life in peril. Does she allow her other children to go motherless?
Maybe the kind who underwent extensive testing and was told that her child would be born limbless or so developmentally delayed that any kind of life would be miserable?
Maybe the kind who was raped and does not want to bear the child of a rapist, whether she would be able to put the child up for adoption or not.
A woman's body is her body. No one should have the right to tell her what to do with it. There are many reasons to have an abortion. I personally feel that in the above cases, an abortion is a reasonable option. I certainly wouldn't wish any of the scenarios above on anyone. Outlawing abortion in general is wrong. If you want to prevent it from being used as a form of birth control, then by all means put limitations on it, but don't outlaw it completely. Sometimes it is the only choice.
Not pro-abortion but definitely pro-choice. There is a difference.
THis is not about taking anything away from kids...they
still have access to birth control...health departments, planned parenthood, clinics, any number of places. It is common knowledge. You hear about it on television on a daily basis, and television, movies, and the internet are where most kids get their information. And frankly, listen to it much more closely than to their parents. Throwing more federal money into any kind of sex ed and/or abstinence programs to me is a waste of money. That was the original question, did I think federal funds should be used for sex ed and abstinence programs.
No, in this culture we live in today, to remove contraception would be idiotic. Sex has been reduced to "expression," having one partner for life has disappeared, multiple partners are fine, yada yada...in that kind of culture to remove birth control would be nuts. Think what the abortion rate would be if that was done...good grief.
By education and programs that doesn't mean dispensing actual birth control. At many schools kids can get condoms. Nearly every health department in the country will dispense birth control and any planned parenthood place will, and that is not going to change.
If you want to reach kids, put those programs on the internet or introduce that kind of information to the shows the kids watch all the time. If you want the information to get to them, that is where it should be covered.
almost 700 kids in 1 cemetary
http://www.careforkidsnow.com/index_files/news.htm
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/14-Mar-2007.html
But the conversation is about kids who are having
things done without the parents' knowledge.
If what kids see is what they think is normal
then where did the gay people come from, assuming they had both a father and a mother?
On another note, I would rather have been raised by Rosie O'Donnell and her partner than my dysfunctional parents. They are much more "normal" than either of my parents.
The UN is not trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids.
in the idea of addressing global poverty. BTW, you need to do a little boning up yourself on the purpose of the United Nations, what it is, how it works and who benefits before expecting anybody anywhere to engage you in any serious debate on this subject. You have been spending way too much time hanging with the fringe. Trust me on this. There is life after fringe.
Why don't you let your kids decide for themselves
what they want to do. I'm glad I had responsible parents who taught me right from wrong, watched me grow, get married, but I also know that if I wanted to be gay they would love me still the same.
Unfortunately too many parents try to control every single aspect of their kids life, and the kids grow up as biggoted and unloving as their parents. Of course I'm not saying that is you, but you just see it too many times on TV.
Parents believe one thing, so they force their kids to believe the same thing, when all along the parents were pretty messed up.
You need to teach your kids on the different lifestyles people in America have and that's why it makes a great nation (or would you rather have the public floggings of gays like they do in the other countries because they don't share the same viewpoints as you). You need to teach your kids the different lifestyles and what it means as a lifestyle for them. Then let them make their own decisions as to what life they wish to choose for themselves.
You need to stop telling people to get a clue because you obviously don't have one.
Hey Kids! Run for President!
But if you screw up we will prosecute you and make sure you're labeled a criminal the rest of your life!!!
I hardly think that teaching kids...(sm)
how NOT to bash LGBTs is going to "force homosexuality upon your kids." Give me a break! They aren't teaching Peter how to kiss Paul. They're teaching Peter how not to beat up Paul. I think it's really sad that this actually has to be a lessen in school in the first place, and in grammar school at that --- not because of the LGBT issues being brought to light, but because of the parents who have obviously taught their kids that its okay to bash others who are different. How many times have you called an LGBT a bad name in front of your kids? Hmmm....
Lets take care of those kids already here
Some have such loud voices when trying to stop a woman from chosing what decisions to make about HER body but, yet, you hear nothing from these same people when it is shown there is so much child abuse, children living with drug and alcohol addicted parents, children living in poverty, not getting a good education, not getting the immunizations they need, not getting health care, on and on. Lets take care of those already on this earth..
I guess you can't think for yourself. I suppose the kids that just
got arrested for setting churches on fire were *indoctrinated* even though 2 of them are from a Methodist college? I guess it goes you show YOU fear *indoctriation* because you can't think for yourself.
It can end with affordable healthcare for kids.
I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy. We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc. I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.
Kids from families making as much as $83,000
Bush was lying about that, as the $83,000 income level limit was not a part of the bill that he vetoed. Also, Democrats already worked with Republicans and compromised quite a bit to come up with a bill that many in both parties agreed upon - too bad only one guy matters, huh? It's a sad day for many struggling middle-class families, but at least the issue has had a big spot light shined upon it - hopefully we can make some much-needed changes to make healthcare more affordable now. All kids deserve healthcare, regardless of how much money their parents make or don't make!!!
Here's a section of a New York Times Article that states that the $83,000 guideline was not a part of the bill that was just vetoed:
"This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
link to the entire article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
She has raised most all her kids while in some form...
of public service. I think she is fully capable of raising this one. I see no evidence to the contrary.
Come on now...are you saying that if the Obamas had a down's child and he was elected that Michelle should just stay in the white house and raise him and not do what the first ladies normally do? They travel, they give speeches, yada yada.
Palin's husband will be of help. It's not like she is going to be in DC, just she and Trig with no help whatsoever.
Yes, he is a down's baby, but he is perfectly healthy in every other way.
And where are your kids while you're online?
No mother can devote 24/7 to their child, Down or not. I know people with Down children and they work, also. There are wonderful programs to enroll children in, too, and believe me, those mothers NEED a break sometimes. I'm sorry, but I do not believe for one second that someone with children is not capable of a political career. Maybe her husband plans to be home with the children, ever think of that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. A father is JUST as important in a child's life and development.
What about parents who don't discuss with their kids?
And so you know right off, I'm not a Barack fan nor McCain fan. However, my own personal beliefs aside, I believe "it takes a village to raise a child" and there are FAR too many parents NOT doing their jobs these days, which forces schools, governments, etc. to jump in to help. I see far too many parents who'd just as soon go to the bar than raise their child. There are parents who are apathetic, and there are parents who are embarrassed or ill-informed themselves to teach their kids sex ed. I don't think sex ed is a problem at all in school, so long as it's in the context of health education and not presented to students in a biased manner of some sort. It IS how mammals reproduce and therefore does have a place in education.
God gave us free will and if you try to control the free will of someone else, how is that right? I believe in consequences of free will when someone chooses wrong, which is why we have laws in place. I don't believe it's any one person's or party's place to tell another how to live their life, period.
Personally, I'd like to see more parents do their jobs at home so gov't and schools didn't have to do it for them (and all the rest of us too as a result), and sure, ideally I'd like to see more kids abstaining from sex altogether. But I'm also a realist and know that my beliefs and willpower aren't the same as everyone else's. That's what is supposed to be great about USA.
The reality is that not all kids have the willpower to abstain in the heat of the moment, no matter WHAT their upbringing or what wonderful parents they have. As you said, it's everywhere - on TV, movies, ads, games, you name it! It's in their face now more than ever, so to ignore it and act like it won't ever happen isn't the answer, either. No, I don't know what the answer is, either, but I don't think that's it.
Also, to take away any access to sex ed and/or birth control at all is in a sense forcing the ideals/morals of one group of people on another and basically taking the free will of the other group - how do you reconcile that? I'm being sincere, as this question plagues me often when considering these issues.
Nancy Pelosi has 5 kids....
maybe she should have aborted a couple? Geez.
|
