re: "Reducing Politically Correct Ad Hominems to Absurdity"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") pondered the relevance of hypocrisy.

Money quote(s):

"The modern left seems to love a particular breed of ad hominem. You cite to them the words and philosophy of Jefferson, Madison, etc. and they say “oh, those were just dead rich white men,” or better yet, “they were rich, dead, racist white slaveholders” and think that means you should dismiss what these people had to say out of hand. I particularly enjoy it when that argument is deployed in opposition to following the original constitution and in favor of the Supreme Court just making sh-t up, because then you are shifting from being ruled by rich dead white men, to being ruled by a group that is old, rich, mainly white and still mostly male. Progress!

I am not saying that background is completely irrelevant. Indeed, the fact that Jefferson was a slaveholder is sometimes relevant in determining what he meant. There are those who hold to this day that the phrase “all men are created equal” actually meant “all white men are created equal” on the theory that Jefferson clearly didn’t mean his slaves because then he would be a hypocrite. Mind you, I think the most obvious answer given the evidence is, yes, Jefferson was a hypocrite, but that doesn’t make it unfair or wrong to look at the fact he owned slaves and wonder what he really meant." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/24

Implementing the laws and regulations as they're written, not as we might write them ourselves

One of CAA's boring little bromides about being a foreign service officer (FSO) generally (and a consular officer specifically) is that FSOs don't make U.S. foreign policy; they implement and facilitate the foreign policy of the United States as established by the president, the Congress, and the secretary of state.

(There are exceptions to this, but they tend to be in situations of grave extremity out somewhere far beyond the beltway, sort of when an FSO becomes a "strategic corporal.")

So most sober FSOs, if they meet someone who says they're interested in making foreign policy, shouldn't encourage them to become FSOs. They should instead direct them to the arena of electoral politics, because it is politicians who make foreign policy, not diplomats.

(Of course, if a politician makes a successful foreign policy, or even survives long enough that people forget their unsuccessful foreign policies, they become known as statesmen.)

For consular officers the mantra is slightly different: consular (and immigration) officers don't make immigration law, regulations, or policies. Consular (and immigration) officers implement the immigration laws, regulations, and policies as they are written, and not as we might (even if we agreed among ourselves) have written them ourselves.

One corollary to all that has to do with public criticism of existing immigration laws, regulations, and policies.

CAA is more than happy to discuss positive and negative aspects of proposed or pending legislation while Congress is debating and deliberating. However, once something is signed into law, CAA will salute smartly and do his best to make it work.

That's what you sign up for when you raise your right hand and take the oath of office. (And if you get to a point where you just can't do that anymore, then it's time to think about hanging up your guns.)

Not that long ago, a change in visa interview policy raised some eyebrows (and hackles). You see, CAA maintains a very post-9/11 mindset when it comes to interviewing visa applicants, and is very on-board with the post-9/11 policy of interviewing all visa applicants, and in conducting as thorough a screening of visa waiver travelers as is practical.

So CAA viewed the Visa Pilot Program with a critical, even jaundiced eye. And came away somewhat grudgingly satisfied with what they have in mind.

So what about the president's recent statement?

Well, CAA tried to find if this was an executive order, but there doesn't seem to be anything published by the White House to indicate that one's actually been published on the subject. Apparently that's not how this is being handled.

(CAA had assumed, based upon all the hollering by the commentariat, that the president had essentially enacted the DREAM Act as an executive order. But that's not actually the case.)

But the president's remarks, once read in their entirety, left a big enough clue: the secretary of homeland security is the person actually issuing this order.

The key points:

"DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis:

1. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
   
   
2. Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
   
   
3. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
   
   
4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
   
   
5. Are not above the age of thirty.

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

While this guidance takes effect immediately, USCIS and ICE expect to begin implementation of the application processes within sixty days"

Essentially, the DHS secretary is going to de-prioritize enforcement of immigration laws against a class of persons residing unlawfully in the U.S. based upon the reality that DHS has only so much in the way of resources, only so many enforcement agents, only so many budget dollars, only so many hours in a day, and only so many cells in their jails.

Executives are expected to exercise both leadership and management. Prioritizing the outlay of limited resources is part of the function of an executive. So that sounds, on the face of it, reasonable enough.

CAA is something of an executive, a manager, even (dare I say it?) a leader in the consular arena of immigration and has been known, when mentoring new vice consuls about how to implement and apply visa ineligibilities, that the bottom line for all the different reasons that someone can be legally barred from coming to the U.S. is a simple question: is this person a danger to the republic? Is this person likely to present a threat to national security, to commit crimes against U.S. citizens, to transmit dangerous (when considering certain medical ineligibilities) contagious diseases among the American people?

The group of people described by the DHS secretary don't, aside from their having been (as minor children) brought to the U.S. illegally, fit the bill for the bottom line as I've described it above.

It follows logically enough that if you're going to publicly announce that DHS finds this particular, clearly-defined, class of illegal aliens an insufficient threat to the nation to expend resources to deport them, that you then cowboy up and not ignore the problem the represent either.

It's quite clever, really, except that the solution DHS is going to, temporarily mind you, pursue will then require the expenditure of those scarce resources I mentioned, in order to receive, process, and provide temporary work permits, &tc.

You see, for legal immigrants, the cost expended in processing their immigration paperwork is recouped through the imposition of application fees. That is, Congress expects that the system will pay for itself so that they don't have to appropriate a huge budget every year to pay for it out of general tax revenues.

So I'm missing the part about what sort of application and processing fees are going to be imposed on the one million (give or take) illegal immigrants who may qualify for this temporary dispensation. Because, assuming all of those eligible go ahead and apply, a million (temporary) amnesty applications are going to take a lot of people away from processing the paperwork of legal immigrants who've been patiently waiting their turn to immigrate lawfully to this country.

Oh, and remember that oath of office? It's to the U.S. Constitution. So I read that every once in a while, when the mood strikes me. (It's really not that long a document.)

So CAA will admit there may be some Constitutional issues about whether it's strictly lawful for the executive branch to simply announce that it's too hard to implement and enforce the laws that Congress passes (or doesn't pass).

It's a gutsy move, frankly, and I'd have liked to see it done long ago in relation to immigration laws, but not necessarily in this context.

Congress has, IMHO, long left the immigration enforcement arms of government somewhat starved of resources to enforce the entirety of the immigration laws it's passed, and many have suggested that to be deliberate, that Congress (or at least some congressmen) wanted the laws on the books, but didn't necessarily want them enforced all that thoroughly. (Reasonable people can disagree on this.)

That being said, I'm sure this will end up in the courts, one way or another; will likely reach the Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile the rest of us working stiffs in government will just follow the lawful directives of our elected and appointed officials while the big paychecks, er, brains sort this out for us.

After all, either Congress will enact legislation making it legal, or the courts will tell us it's legal for the executive to prioritize this and handle the fallout accordingly, or it'll all get thrown out and DHS will have plenty of information on about a million self-identified illegal immigrants with which to jump-start their deportation proceedings.

re: "When Good Politics Is Bad Policy and Bad Law"

DAVE SCHULER at The Glittering Eye considered the Arizona immigration testimony before the Supreme Court.

Money quote(s):

"The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case Arizona v. United States, the federal challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, considered draconian by its foes and obvious by its defenders. You can’t draw hard and fast conclusions about how the justices will rule based on oral arguments but the day did not go well for the Obama Administration."

It's tough to make strong arguments when your case is so weak.

"To my untutored layman’s eye the federal government’s argument appears to be that it can have its cake and eat it, too. The Congress can pass and the president can sign laws and then, if enforcement or even simple management is too burdensome, it can merely ignore them. That strikes me as a political argument rather than either a policy or a legal one. Congress should either authorize the resources necessary to enforce the laws it passes or limit their scope so that they can be enforced with the resources they’re willing to grant." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Mr. Schuler isn't wrong about what Congress should do, but getting Congress to do what it should do is beyond the powers of mortal men.

"On immigation the Congress has chosen the path of political least resistance by in theory having fairly strict immigration law while in practice having very limited immigration law. That doesn’t make any sense either from a policy or legal standpoint.

Just to restate briefly my views on immigration I don’t think we have an immigration problem in this country. I think we have a temporary problem of Mexican immigration in this country, temporary because of Mexican demographics and, indeed, Latin American and Caribbean demographics more generally. I think that we should increase the number of work permits available to Mexicans by at least an order of magnitude, possibly several orders of magnitude, give employers better tools for verifying the status of the workers they hire, and thereafter enforce immigration laws strictly in the workplace, imposing severe penalties on employers who refuse to comply. But, honestly, I’m not worried about the issue because, as I’ve said, it is temporary and the recent stories about immigration from Mexico slowing or even reversing recently fully support my view."

Congress has gotten around much in the way of immigration-related costs by putting the financial burden for legal immigrants firmly on those immigrants themselves, by requiring DHS (and State) to impose fees, making many of these functions pay for themselves.

The costs of dealing with illegal immigrants aren't amenable to such an approach.

4/25

re: "Libya and MI6 (again): Sir Mark Allen"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") described a thorny British problem that parallels one we have in the U.S.

Money quote(s):

"The issue here is not any claim that MI6/HMG engaged in torture. Rather it is that MI6/HMG are said to have been 'complicit' in torture in Libya of certain Libyans by certain other Libyans. Which raises the question: what does complicity mean?"

Let's see where he goes with this.

"(M)aximalists insist that even to possess information which is suspected as having come from torture amounts to 'complicity'. That position, as the House of Lords found in 2005, is incorrect as a matter of law (and common sense)" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Not that this finding carries any water in the U.S., but one hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court would reason as well as the House of Lords.

"The problem here is that any secret 'rendition' by us or even a contribution to secret rendition by others is likely to have been endorsed by Ministers, either specifically or as a general rule. So to single out one civil servant for litigation is mischievous if not malevolent.

Second, the whole case turns on the idea that 'complicity' can be stretched far beyond any immediate link to maltreatment. Any abuse or torture was not committed by HMG or its officials. Is it really fair to make us legally responsible for horrors committed by others far away?

Even if you think that it is reasonable to do so on the moral level, you need to draw a line somewhere and say that the actions alleged were too 'remote' to amount to complicity. Under what principle should the line be drawn in specific cases? What balancing factors should be taken into account?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

British civil (or foreign) servants are as unlikely as our own to go "rogue" and try to "Lone Ranger" this sort of thing. They like a policy, preferably written, that delimits what their authority, and liability, is.

"This nasty, bleak, lonely policy and moral frontier was where Mark Allen and his colleagues were operating. If the way is opened to sue them for outcomes which were far from ideal if not awful, who is going to be ready to do this sort of fundamentally important work?

The issue here is simple. Not what the 'right' choice is when you are dealing with a regime like Gaddafi's. There isn't one.

Rather it is 'who decides?'.

We seem to be ending up in the absurd position that sanctimonious lawyers and unelected judges far from the operational and policy realities of such questions are seen as more 'responsible' than elected politicians and civil servants who are elected to do our dirty work while operating to arguably the highest standards of public probity in human history.

Yes, judges have the benefit of detachment. And yes, Ministers and officials can get so wrapped up in what they are doing that serious errors get made. But this is one where the best people to judge are voters, not lawyers."

Our own courts, operating under our unitary written Constitution, have taken some pains over the years to differentiate between the political and judicial spheres of authority, ceding that some things are not for courts to decide, but are the province of executives and legislators.

1/31

re: "Perry and the Illegals"

Kevin D. Williamson at The Corner (" The one and only. ") considered tuition benefits for illegal aliens.

Money quote(s):

"Under a Supreme Court mandate (Plyler vs. Doe), Texas and every other state is obliged to provide K-12 education for illegal immigrants. What Texas has decided, under Rick Perry, is to treat Texas high-school graduates like Texas high-school graduates for the purposes of calculating college tuition, including those who were brought here illegally by their parents, with a couple of provisos: They have to have been in school in Texas for three years prior to graduating from a Texas high school, and they have to be on their way to becoming legal permanent residents of the United States."

It's that last "proviso" that's problematic, IMNSHO; correct me if I'm wrong but this requirement can be met by an affidavit from the illegal immigrant that they're intending to become an LPR rather than by any proof of actual eligibility for that status.

"(Y)ou want to draw a bright line in the sand regarding illegal immigration; on the other hand, it’s hard to blame the kids for their parents’ wrongdoing, and the fact is that they’re here — some have spent practically their whole lives here — and we have to decide what to do with them. (I was once an illegal immigrant myself, so maybe I’m biased by experience.) In either case, it seems to me a pretty small thing compared to the robust border-security measures that are needed.

Deciding what kind of tuition to charge illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and who meet the criteria for university admission is a very nice, rich-nation problem to have. (Seriously, you’re pretty well-off when your “problems” include college students.) That being said, in Texas the relevant question isn’t what we charge illegals for tuition, but whether we admit them to state universities at all. That’s because tuition in Texas is modest, even at the flagship universities, covering something on the order of one-fourth of the cost of operating the schools."

There are only so many seats in only so many lecture halls, as the writer notes below (in bolded typeface).

"Early in the 20th century, the state of Texas gave the universities a whole bunch of land, which turned out to have a whole bunch of oil on it, and West Texas is full of wells bobbing up and down and pumping grade-A education out of the ground. That, too, helps keep the professors in tweed."

&

"(T)hey really use tuition as an expedient tool of enrollment control. It is politically difficult to raise admission standards at public universities, but they can only take so many students. Once you’ve decided to admit an illegal on any terms, you’ve decided not to admit somebody else: The number of university seats is limited, and that is a more binding constraint than raw dollars, of which there are many billions in the Permanent University Fund." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Texas has created a zero-sum game and by providing an advantage to illegal immigrants, however "deserving" and sympathetic they must perforce disadvantage a U.S. citizen (and Texan).

"(I)f you have a student who has graduated from a Texas high school and who has lived for years in Texas, who isn’t going back to Mexico any time soon, and who qualifies for admission to a Texas university — it is not obvious to me that the most intelligent course of action is to make it more difficult for that student to go to college, rather than less.

If you want to neutralize the magnet that draws illegals to the United States, I think you’d be better off putting handcuffs on a half a dozen Tyson Foods plant managers than worrying about what the Aggies charge their undergrads."

There are reasons why CAA always purchases Perdue chicken when given a choice between Tyson Foods and Perdue products.

9/23

re: "Congress’s Constitutional Power to Establish National War Policy in Violation of International Law – A (Belated) Response to Professors.... "

John Dehn at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") summarized the play-by-play on some international law back-and-forth.

Money quote(s):

"Opinio Juris hosted an excellent discussion of an important new book, International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court, a well-edited collection of essays about the Supreme Court’s approach to international law. Professor David Golove’s contribution asserting that post-9/11 Supreme Court “War on Terror” decisions are consistent with what he called our “Just War constitutional tradition” drew significant attention. In Professor Golove’s view, both the President and Congress are constitutionally required to comply with at least some international laws of war. Professor Andrew Kent critiqued the essay here, arguing that Golove’s claims, particularly those involving Congress, are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent recognizing Congress’s power to set national policy in violation of international law.
I agree with Golove’s assertion that the executive branch must generally comply with any applicable international laws of war. Like Professor Kent, I am quite circumspect of the claim that Congress must as well. Harlan Cohen responded to Professor Kent’s post, suggesting that Professor Golove and Professor William Dodge (one of the book’s editors) may believe that all nations, including ours, are “absolutely bound” by certain rules of international law, those that the well-known (to the Framers and to academics) and influential Eighteenth Century international law commentator Emmerich de Vattel categorized “voluntary law.” " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

There's actually no such thing as "international law."

Don't get me wrong; there is a body of customary, traditional, and treaty-based law (for values of "law") comprising a body of specialized knowledge which is generally termed "international law." But that "law" doesn't even come close to passing the common sense tests that would make it equivalent to other forms of actual law.

"After reading Professor Golove’s contribution to the book, Professor Ramsey’s response, and Professor Dodge’s related essay, I think there may be confusion regarding the obligatory nature of what Vattel denominated “voluntary law” and its relationship to both the contemporary laws of war and the war powers of Congress.

I believe Congress possesses the constitutional power (in conjunction with the executive, when necessary) to establish national war policy contrary to relevant international law so long as it does not violate the text of the Constitution. To the extent that Professor Golove’s unpublished research may have uncovered “longstanding understandings in Congress” that it must follow certain international laws of war, I suspect those understandings to be based in morality or wise policy, not necessarily constitutional law. Golove has to date given only scant evidence of what seems an elegant argument in favor of granting constitutional status to any such congressional understandings.

I agree that there are (and were) rules of international law that nations were believed “absolutely bound” to observe. They included what Vattel denominated the “perfect rights” of nations. Perfect rights were those “accompanied by the right of compelling those who refuse to fulfill the correspondent obligation” through armed force. However, the absolute “bindingness” of these rules existed only in international law." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

There are some issues (more than some, but bear with me) with this perspective on the "bindingness" of international law.

For one thing, the perspective is astonishingly narrow in scope.

What we in the West call "international law" is a body of artifacts whose only relevance is within the larger context of the post-Westphalian international system. It is the height of civilizational and cultural chauvanism to suppose that it is truly global in application.

"(A) national policy, even one properly established under domestic law, may permit a violation of international law. But it cannot excuse that violation from the perspective of international law. In such cases, the policy is lawful in the domestic (municipal) legal system, but remains a violation of international law.

In my view, the key question is not whether the U.S. has ‘the power but not the right’ (to paraphrase Louis Henkin) to violate international law; it does. The key question is: which branch(es) of the U.S. government may constitutionally establish national policy contrary to international law? My research leads me to believe that in most contexts, including war, Congress does. In some very narrow circumstances it has been (and may still be) the executive alone." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The thing about violations of international law which are legal within a domestic legal system is the limited scope for enforcement. Who or what gets to enforce "international law" within another sovereign state and using what means or mechanisms?

"(T)he bulk of the contemporary international law of war (both jus ad bellum and jus in bello or international humanitarian law (IHL)) consists of customary and conventional constraints on conduct the natural law-based law of nations permitted. Therefore, contemporary IHL is not properly equated with Vattel’s “voluntary” law, which is law evidenced in or derived from natural law principles, generally observed for its utility, and obligatory on civilized states through their presumed (rather than express or implied) consent.

Vattel identifies three other categories of international law, (1) necessary, (2) customary and (3) conventional. Only necessary law, which consisted of the direct application of natural law to nations, was immutable or absolute. Vattel classified the other three types, including voluntary law, as composing the “positive law of nations” because “they proceed from the will of nations.” It defies logic to say that any species positive law cannot be altered at the will of the same nations that establish it." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

"(T)o the extent that any rules in the contemporary law of war might be properly categorized “voluntary” law, the Constitution expressly assigns Congress the power to derogate from or abrogate such law. Importantly, this includes the power to infringe the “perfect rights” of other nations. Nothing in the constitutional text expressly requires Congress to exercise its powers to declare war or grant letters of marque (or reprisal, see below) in a manner consistent with relevant international law. This is why the Court did not, in its early decisions, review a congressionally established general or partial war for compliance with the law of nations."

The OJ article included a nice quote from Chief Justice Marshall (Talbot v. Seeman) to back up that last claim:

“The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United
States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry [into whether France was properly deemed an enemy].” (emphasis added)

"Of course, none of these observations directly addresses Golove’s claim: that Congress believed itself to be limited by the law of nations when exercising its powers, and that this sense of obligation had a constitutional dimension or basis. There are, quite obviously, many reasons why members of Congress or Congress as a body might have boisterously made such claims. Chief among them would be to claim the legitimacy of law for proposed or adopted legislation infringing the perfect rights of other nations. Given the widely accepted origins of the natural law, some might also have felt morally obligated to observe it in spite of having constitutional discretion not to do so."

(9/6)

LoveFM - SUPREME COURT ORDERS THAT CHINESE NATIONALS BE EXPELLED

From my archive of press clippings:

LoveFM

SUPREME COURT ORDERS THAT CHINESE NATIONALS BE EXPELLED

April 14, 2009

Acting Chief Justice Samuel Awich has made a ruling in the case of a group of illegal Chinese nationals.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The group, comprising seven men and one woman arrived in Belize two weeks ago without a travel visa. And because of the Supreme Court's ruling, they are tonight awaiting expulsion from the country."

&

"The plane that the group arrived on reportedly took off from Havana, Cuba, but it is unclear how they managed to get on the aircraft in the first place without a valid travel visa."

AO - Two Cubans and a Somalian seeking refugee status find favor with Supreme Court

Amandala Online


Two Cubans and a Somalian seeking refugee status find favor with Supreme Court


Posted: 07/05/2009 - 10:55 PM


Author: Rowland A. Parks

It is standard procedure for the Government of Belize to ship people back to their countries of origin once they arrive in Belize seeking some kind of refugee status. At the Kolbe-managed prison, there are a number of persons who are awaiting repatriation to their countries of origin. Although Belize has a refugee law and is a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention, the rights of persons seeking refugee status in Belize are at times overlooked.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"But today in the Supreme Court, Belize’s Refugee Law was upheld, when Justice Michelle Arana ruled in favor of human rights activist Antoinette Moore in a judicial review that she filed on behalf of two Cubans and a citizen of Somalia, who are seeking refugee status in Belize.

The two Cubans filed an application for a judicial review, challenging the Government of Belize’s policy in relation to their refugee interest. The Cubans, Pedro Garcia Carrera and Karelis de Los Angeles Sosa Sanchez, and the Somalian, Nur Abdi Shire, took the Attorney General, the Minister of National Security, and the Director of Immigration to court, asking the court to affirm their rights to seek refugee status in Belize.

In her judgment that was issued in the applicants’ favor, Justice Arana ruled that the petitioners have a right to a refugee hearing. But most importantly, while they are awaiting such a hearing, they will do so in protective custody outside the walls of the prison."

S&S - Envoy: Rape case shouldn’t affect Philippines agreement

Stars and Stripes



Envoy: Rape case shouldn’t affect Philippines agreement


By David Allen, Stars and Stripes

Pacific edition, Sunday, March 29, 2009


The U.S. ambassador to the Philippines does not believe the Daniel Smith rape case will affect the Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"In a statement reported by media in Manila on Wednesday, Ambassador Kristie Kenney said negotiations regarding where the Marine lance corporal should be held pending his appeal of his December 2006 conviction should not result in any changes to the entire agreement.

The Philippines Supreme Court ruled last month that Smith, who is being held on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy in Manila pending his appeal, should have been remanded to a Philippines jail. The court ruled the agreement allowing Smith’s transfer to the embassy compound did not follow the guidelines set forth in the bilateral Visiting Forces Agreement, known as the VFA."

&

"On March 12, the 25-year-old woman who testified during the trial that Smith raped her, signed an affidavit stating she now doubts Smith actually raped her.

The woman, known publicly as "Nicole," has since moved to the U.S. with her American boyfriend, according to statements made by her mother."

PBP - With U.S. in slump, dual citizenship in EU countries attracts Americans

From my archive of press clippings:

Palm Beach Post

With U.S. in slump, dual citizenship in EU countries attracts Americans


By ANDREW ABRAMSON


Palm Beach Post Staff Writer


Saturday, June 07, 2008


For millions of Europeans who braved the Atlantic Ocean for a glimpse of the Statue of Liberty and dreams of a lavish life, there was little thought of ever emigrating back. Yet for a new generation of Americans of European descent, the Old Country is becoming a new country full of promise and opportunity.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The creation of the European Union and its thriving economy is very appealing for Americans in a global economy.

"With an EU passport, I can live and work in 27 countries," said Suzanne Mulvehill of Lake Worth. "With a U.S. passport, I can live and work in one."

Americans can claim citizenship in any of the 27 European countries that are in the EU based on the nationality of their parents, or in some cases, grandparents and great-grandparents.

Citizenship in one of those countries allows you to live and work in any EU nation.

Since the United States doesn't keep statistics on dual citizens, it's impossible to know exactly how many people have applied for citizenship in Europe.

But it's estimated that more than 40 million Americans are eligible for dual citizenship, and a growing number of Americans want to try their luck elsewhere."

&

"Dual citizenship became a major issue during the War of 1812, when the British military tried recruiting, and in some cases forcing, British-born American citizens to fight on Britain's side.

For years, being a dual citizen was seen as unpatriotic, and until 1967 it was possible for the United States to revoke American citizenship for people who voted in foreign elections.

But in the 1967 Afroyim vs. Rusk decision, Supreme Court justices ruled 5-4 that it was unconstitutional to bar dual citizenship."