4 ms·

It’s clear you disagree with US immigration policy - ok - but like it or not it’s duly enacted law. On the one hand, I’m not sure how you can rationalize peopl

by cascom 8y ago

It’s clear you disagree with US immigration policy - ok - but like it or not it’s duly enacted law. On the one hand, I’m not sure how you can rationalize people earning citizenship based on falsifying their application. On the other hand, clearly a policy of stripping people of the citizenship based on trivial inconsitiencies or impossible to achevie standards is not within the spirit of the law. Hence my comment indicating that where one draws the line between those two ends is where the issue lies.

eesmith 8y ago
Yes, the US has duly enacted many laws which were unjust, cruel, and hateful, and which I disagree(d) with. I see no reason why stripping one's citizenship is required in order to be able to effectively prosecute someone who gained citizenship fraudulently. That is, I see no reason for there to be a line at all. Consider Jakiw Palij, an actual Nazi war criminal who got US citizenship fraudulently and was stripped of citizenship as a result. Yet he still lives in the US because no other country will accept him. https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-wont-deport-the-last-nazi-war-criminal-in-america https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-wont-deport-the-last-nazi-... He's still a free man living in Queens. Still, there is a line. Let's talk about that line with the concrete example of Baljinder Singh. His horrid crime was that "he failed to indicate that he had once been ordered deported, and that he had originally been admitted into the United States under the name Davinder Singh, rather than Baljinder Singh"? Is that were the line should be? We know the "duly enacted law" can be horridly racist. Bhagat Singh Thind was stripped of citizenship about 100 years ago because the Supreme Court decided that he, an Indian man, "lied when he claimed to be a “free white person” as defined by the Naturalization Act of 1906." While Aryan and Caucasian, according to the anthropological definitions at the time, he wasn't sufficiently 'white'. His citizenship was stripped twice before finally becoming a US citizen for the third time.

by cascom 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

Yes, the US has duly enacted many laws which were unjust, cruel, and hateful, and which I disagree(d) with. I see no reason why stripping one's citizenship is required in order to be able to effectively prosecute someone who gained citizenship fraudulently. That is, I see no reason for there to be a line at all. Consider Jakiw Palij, an actual Nazi war criminal who got US citizenship fraudulently and was stripped of citizenship as a result. Yet he still lives in the US because no other country will accept him. https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-wont-deport-the-last-nazi-war-criminal-in-america https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-wont-deport-the-last-nazi-... He's still a free man living in Queens. Still, there is a line. Let's talk about that line with the concrete example of Baljinder Singh. His horrid crime was that "he failed to indicate that he had once been ordered deported, and that he had originally been admitted into the United States under the name Davinder Singh, rather than Baljinder Singh"? Is that were the line should be? We know the "duly enacted law" can be horridly racist. Bhagat Singh Thind was stripped of citizenship about 100 years ago because the Supreme Court decided that he, an Indian man, "lied when he claimed to be a “free white person” as defined by the Naturalization Act of 1906." While Aryan and Caucasian, according to the anthropological definitions at the time, he wasn't sufficiently 'white'. His citizenship was stripped twice before finally becoming a US citizen for the third time.