What I still don't understand is why he didn't claim German citizenship
and move to Germany, which does not extradite its citizens. Perhaps he
was too confused to even consider it.

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:11:08 +0000 (UTC), "Marco"
wrote:

What I still don't understand is why he didn't claim German citizenship

Why don't you understand this?

If I have parents, siblings, wife, and children, all of whom have, for
example, U.S. citizenship, that doesn't mean that I can 'claim' U.S.
citizenship. The U.S. regulations in this respect are relatively
liberal.

and move to Germany, which does not extradite its citizens. Perhaps he
was too confused to even consider it.

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jürgen R." wrote in message


On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:11:08 +0000 (UTC), "Marco"
wrote:

What I still don't understand is why he didn't claim German citizenship

Why don't you understand this?

Do I need to spell it out? I don't understand why Fischer wanted to
live in Japan when he had a perfectly safe alternative.

If I have parents, siblings, wife, and children, all of whom have, for
example, U.S. citizenship, that doesn't mean that I can 'claim' U.S.
citizenship.

Germany is not the US and has different citizenship laws. The last
ones, passed in 2000, still make Bobby Fischer a German citizen.

The U.S. regulations in this respect are relatively
liberal.

I'm not sure what you mean by liberal. Personally I find it strange
that someone born in the US by chance has more rights to US
citizenship than someone born outside the US of American parents.

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Americans have been largely sold on the State as the new god. There was a
time when juries did not take a judge's instructions as gospel and rendered
verdicts based on natural law suppositions. In 19th century
England, juries would not convict for minor theft no matter what the proof
happened to be because the punishment in many instances -- hanging -- was
utterly disproportionate to the crime.

Bobby played chess, practiced his art. He is being held in jail for
doing this -- not for stealing your wallet, not for raping someone's
daughter, not for gunning down his next door neighbor, not for defrauding
anyone. His act of playing chess became criminal because George Bush pere
issued an executive order.

We may assume, though we do not know, that he is being terrorized by
American agents even at this moment.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:56:49 +0000 (UTC), "Marco de Innocentis"
wrote:

"Jürgen R." wrote in message


On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:11:08 +0000 (UTC), "Marco"
wrote:

What I still don't understand is why he didn't claim German citizenship

Why don't you understand this?

Do I need to spell it out? I don't understand why Fischer wanted to
live in Japan when he had a perfectly safe alternative.

If I have parents, siblings, wife, and children, all of whom have, for
example, U.S. citizenship, that doesn't mean that I can 'claim' U.S.
citizenship.

Germany is not the US and has different citizenship laws. The last
ones, passed in 2000, still make Bobby Fischer a German citizen.

No they don't, even if he could prove that his father was a German
citizen at the time of his birth. But read the regulations yourself.

The U.S. regulations in this respect are relatively
liberal.

I'm not sure what you mean by liberal. Personally I find it strange
that someone born in the US by chance has more rights to US
citizenship than someone born outside the US of American parents.

Also not true. If either parent is a U.S. citizen the child has a
right to U.S. citizenship even if born in another country. This right
may be lost or lapse for various reasons.


Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jürgen R." wrote in message


Germany is not the US and has different citizenship laws. The last
ones, passed in 2000, still make Bobby Fischer a German citizen.

No they don't, even if he could prove that his father was a German
citizen at the time of his birth. But read the regulations yourself.

You are right, it doesn't. Since 2000 Fischer no longer has a
right to German citizenship. What an idiot he is. If he had applied
any time before 2000 he would have been eligible immediately. The
reason he is not eligible now is that when only the father is a
German citizen the application must be submitted before one turns
23, and I think Fischer is a bit older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean by liberal. Personally I find it strange
that someone born in the US by chance has more rights to US
citizenship than someone born outside the US of American parents.

Also not true. If either parent is a U.S. citizen the child has a
right to U.S. citizenship even if born in another country. This right
may be lost or lapse for various reasons.

This is exactly what I was saying. If you are born in the US you
are guaranteed US citizenship for life, even if your parents are
tourists or illegal immigrants (the only exception I know if is
for children of foreign diplomats). On the other hand if you were
born outside the US your US citizenship may one day lapse or be
revoked.

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jürgen R." wrote:

Also not true. If either parent is a U.S. citizen the
child has a right to U.S. citizenship even if born in
another country.

True to a fair extent, though not totally true.

There are a bunch of complex rules controlling whether a child born
outside the US to an American parent or parents will, or will not,
be automatically a US citizen at birth.

For example, if one parent of a non-US-born child is a US citizen
and the other is not, the American parent needs to have spent several
years in the US before the child's birth -- including some time as
a teenager or an adult.

A summary of the rules can be found online at:

http://travel.state.gov/law/acquisition.html

This right may be lost or lapse for various reasons.

From the point of view of a non-US-born child who has US citizenship
through his/her American parent(s), this is not true. A child born
outside the US, with US citizenship at birth, is a US citizen for
life (unless he/she explicitly acts to give up his/her citizenship).

At one time, many years ago, a child of American parentage born
outside the US could lose his/her citizenship unless he/she moved
back to the US and lived there for several years before age 28.
However, the last law of this type was repealed in 1978.

It is true, though, that if an American moves abroad, his/her
descendants will eventually not have any claim to US citizenship,
because once the parent(s) fail to meet the US presence requirements,
the children won't be US citizens at birth.

Marco de Innocentis replied:

If you are born in the US you are guaranteed US citizenship
for life, even if your parents are tourists or illegal
immigrants . . . .

True. US citizenship law includes two traditional legal principles
-- citizenship through birth on the country's soil (ius soli), as
well as citizenship through birth to a parent or parents with citi-
zenship (ius sanguinis).

On the other hand if you were born outside the US your US
citizenship may one day lapse or be revoked.

As for "lapse", see above.

As for "be revoked", that's an interesting question. Citizenship
at birth of non-US-born persons is established by act of Congress,
and it could in theory expire or be revoked if Congress decided to
say so. In fact, while the old laws about loss of citizenship were
in effect (before late 1978), the Supreme Court upheld those laws
as constitutional; see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

But as to whether such revocation would happen again now, Congress
is (as far as I'm aware) not at all inclined to reinstate the old
laws providing for expiration of US citizenship.

Rich Wales http://www.richw.org
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. My comments are for discussion
purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or
professional advice.

"Marco de Innocentis" wrote in message
news:a547e591431364cf09b5c42c0292c2dd.122502@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Jürgen R." wrote in message

"Marco de Innocentis" wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by liberal. Personally I find it
strange that someone born in the US by chance has more rights to
US citizenship than someone born outside the US of American parents.

Also not true. If either parent is a U.S. citizen the child has
a right to U.S. citizenship even if born in another country.
This right may be lost or lapse for various reasons.

This is exactly what I was saying. If you are born in the US you are
guaranteed US citizenship for life,

As I recall--though I am not quite certain of it--some legislation passed
since 11 September 2001 could give the United States government the power
to revoke anyone's United States citizenship if the government determines
that that person has supported 'terrorism'.

even if your parents are tourists or illegal immigrants (the only exception
I know if is for children of foreign diplomats). On the other hand if you
were born outside the US your US citizenship may one day lapse or be revoked.

As far as I know (I am not a United States lawyer practising in immigration
and naturalisation cases.), that seems correct.

On a historical note, in the 1898 United States Supreme Court case of the
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States government did its utmost
to define United states citizenship on a racial/ethnic basis by arguing
that Wong Kim Ark, who had been born in the United States (that fact was
undisputed) to Chinese parents, was thereby *not* a United States citizen.

"There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that
would be scarred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage."
--Solicitor General Conrad, on behalf of the United States (1898)

In effect, the United States goverment argued that Wong Kim Ark was 'racially
inferior' to the extent that he really should be considered 'subhuman' and
hence unworthy of the protection of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
By a vote of 6 to 2, the United States lost the Supreme Court decision.

--Nick

I was reading in the Bible, which I believe to be a history of the Jewish
People, that the Jews were driven out of Isreal because of their sinful
ways. Not by Nazi's but by their own God.
"Jürgen R." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:11:08 +0000 (UTC), "Marco"
wrote:

What I still don't understand is why he didn't claim German citizenship

Why don't you understand this?

If I have parents, siblings, wife, and children, all of whom have, for
example, U.S. citizenship, that doesn't mean that I can 'claim' U.S.
citizenship. The U.S. regulations in this respect are relatively
liberal.

and move to Germany, which does not extradite its citizens. Perhaps he
was too confused to even consider it.

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Nick" wrote:

As I recall--though I am not quite certain of it--some
legislation passed since 11 September 2001 could give the
United States government the power to revoke anyone's
United States citizenship if the government determines
that that person has supported 'terrorism'.

AFAIK, no such legislation was actually enacted (though I do recall
reading about a proposal to change the law as described above).

Section 349(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USC
1481(a)(7)] already says that treason against the US, or attempting
or conspiring to overthrow the US government by force or wage war
against the US, is grounds for revocation of US citizenship, if and
when a person has been convicted of such an action.

INA 349 also says that this (or any other) action can result in loss
of US citizenship only if the action in question was voluntary and
was performed with the intention of giving up US citizenship (yes, I
agree that waging war against the US would usually also involve an
intention of giving up US citizenship, but . . .).

Another historical note: After WWII, a US citizen of Japanese
ancestry (Tomoya Kawakita), who was stuck in Japan when the war
broke out, and who was later convicted of treason for aiding the
Japanese war effort and abusing American POW's, tried to argue that
he had lost his US citizenship by asserting his Japanese nationality,
but the Supreme Court ruled that he was still a US citizen; Kawakita
v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

I imagine lots of people at the time had a vested interest in Kawa-
kita's NOT having lost his US citizenship, since he would otherwise
have gotten off the hook on the treason charge. Nowadays, I suppose
some people would be equally as eager to see this sort of person
stripped of his US citizenship ASAP, in order that he could be dealt
with as an "enemy combatant" with as few pesky due-process rights as
possible.

Rich Wales http://www.richw.org
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. My comments are for discussion
purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or
professional advice.