re: "On Being a Good American"

Daniel Foster at The Corner ("The one and only.") considered the significance of U.S. citizenship.

Money quote(s):

"Charlie has an article on the homepage today defending John Sununu, in the abstract at least, on the idea that there is such a thing as being a (good) American, and that this is something one can learn. (Remember, Sununu’s walked-back line was about how he wished President Obama would “learn” how to be an American). Charlie’s point — far more controversial than it ought to be — is that being an American in good standing has to do with more than the conditions of one’s birth or the disposition of one’s naturalization paperwork. There is no Belgian Idea, or Belgian Dream, Charlie writes, but there are American ones, and understanding and internalizing them is constitutive of American-ness." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"(T)he existence and character of the civics test prospective citizens must take proves that being an American has real, normative content. For instance, one of the regular questions on the test asks which economic system the United States enjoys, and the correct answer is “capitalism.” Charlie argues that, surely, this at least strongly implies that capitalism — or at least the principles of limited government that make capitalism the only compatible economic system — is a fundamental part of the American Idea, and that embracing capitalism is thus a fundamental part of being a Good American."

True enough, except that this is one of those "yes, but" instances where the "correct" answer isn't actually as clear-cut and black-and-white as simply answering "capitalism."

Is our economic system based upon capitalism? Yes, but..... we have a mixed economy, and have had since the New Deal (if not before).

"(N)ot only does our oath of citizenship call on us to support the Constitution, it calls on us to defend it. Not only defend it, but defend it with arms. Not only to defend it with arms, but to take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That gives a pretty strong indication that being a Good American requires embracing our founding document — and all the follows from it." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

7/31

re: "If You're A Terrorist Abroad, the Fact that You're an American is Only Incidental"

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D at The Jawa Report ("Sand people, get it?") explained, as you would to a child, what you do to enemies in wartime.

Money quote(s):

"The way you word things matters and I've become more and more annoyed over the past few years as many on the Right have increasingly adopted the phraseology of ardent Leftists. People who only a few years ago were die hard supporters of the war on terrorism today use phrases to make it seem that the same policies carried out under Bush are now leading to jack-booted-thuggery.

....

The particular wording I'm annoyed at today is the description of drone strikes as the "targeted killing of American citizens"."

Read on, MacDuff.

"We're at war. In a war, you kill your enemies. The fact that your enemies who are members or leaders of a foreign terrorist organization operating overseas are American is only incidental to the fact that they are terrorists.

We didn't kill Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan because they were Americans. We killed them because they were terrorists.

This wasn't a case of the President of the United States killing a criminal in lieu of a trial. These were enemy combatants. You kill your enemies, you don't bring them to trial.

The fact that your enemy is an American citizen is irrelevant." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Simple truths. It's troubling that they need to be stated, and re-stated (and re-stated yet again) but that's why they pay us bloggers the big (non-existent) bucks.

(After all, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.)

"The idea that we are going to fly FBI agents to Yemen, read members of al Qaeda their rights, and then bring them to Virginia for a trial is sheer fantasy. It's completely and utterly disconnected to reality.

Yet that is what you are arguing for if you oppose targeted assassinations or military trials. Unless, of course, you are arguing that the US should do nothing about jihadi terrorism, even when that terrorism is directly targeted against the United States.

Before 9/11 the policy of the US was to treat terrorists as criminals. After the USS Cole and African embassy bombings, President Clinton sent in the FBI to investigate.

Yeah, that did a lot of good. 9/11 was an outgrowth of that policy position.

So, if you want to go back to that model then, by all means, keep advocating for an end to drone strikes and military commissions.

And when we're hit on a mass scale like we were on 9/11 again, I'll blame you and your legalistic ideology in regards to notions of civil liberties for the atrocity." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

2/1

re: "al-Awlaki and Citizenship"

Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") discusses AAA and what to do about his like in the future.

Money quote(s):

"Al-Awlaki obviously was obviously hostile to the United States; in an older world, in which our adversaries were also states, he would have lost his US citizenship as a member of the armed forces of another state. But the only way to lose your citizenship today is to walk into a US consulate and formally renounce it, a step al-Awlaki wasn’t in a position to undertake.

One response would be to adopt a Lieberman-type terrorist expatriation measure. I don’t think that would do a lot of good, other than generate yet another layer of litigation, this one over whether particular conduct evinced an intent to relinquish citizenship (constitutionally required, as per Afroyim v. Rusk). So that leaves us with some citizens who don’t really seem like citizens, which means that the citizen/non-citizen differential for rights purposes will get smaller still."

The laws regarding expatriation and expatriating acts are still on the books; this business about only those who voluntarily relinquish citizenship is a function of judicial interpretation, which can be overturned. And should be.

10/5

re: "Quiz: Where Are Parents Required To Produce "Original Passports/ Visas"?"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England…") exhibits a firm grasp of the issues and consequences.

Money quote(s):

"American states had never felt impelled to look for evidence of enrolled children’s U.S. “legal status”. One reason was probably because if there were illegal immigrant children in school, their small numbers did not seem to justify the effort. That seems no longer so."

Local school districts are much more concerned about truancy by school-age children than by their immigration status. And I believe this can reasonably, until quite recently, be extended to the individual states. It's a case of conflicting priorities: local school districts (and states) should not tolerate the fostering of a generation of un-schooled children. That's not their mission.

"(I)n allowing non-U.S. resident children in school, the U.S. has big-heartedly and accidentally ended up doing at least partly what Justice Brennan thought that ruling would prevent. Leaving aside that enrolling them could encourage illegal parents “to root” themselves in the country as they could not otherwise if their children could not be schooled, larger collateral damage that was unforeseen has been those children’s enrollment a decade on creates the tragic “imagined American” teen illegal. Have we not heard far too much about kids who had been through school and mistakenly THOUGHT they were U.S. citizens, only suddenly to discover they are not…when they tried to obtain a driving licence, apply to college or seek a job?

That is where the desire on the part of many for a “Dream Act” comes from. But any such “Dream Act” too is worrying precisely for yet another issue it would also create. And no one seems to be be thinking ahead on that either, but yours truly raised it previously.

The U.S. should be asking: if they are to be schooled, what can be done to prevent the arising of children who come to think they are U.S. citizens when they are not? And if we are genuinely to assist those now trapped of no fault of their own, if all illegally present children are now perhaps to be granted anmesty to do so, how are we possibly to stop millions more parents from entering with young children illegally and hoping for the same outcome for their own kids eventually?"

Although citizenship laws aren't really written this way, most real Americans know in their heart-of-hearts that being an American is much less about the circumstances of a person's birth than about their commitment to American values. That's something that legislators just can't craft into law, no matter how much they might try. They are, after all, lawyers (most of them) so they approach the question of nationality in a legalistic fashion.

"Immigration is rarely able to be dealt with in policy isolation. It is not just about schooling. Anyone pushing (liberals especially) also for universal health cover in the U.S., would, if it ever came about, certainly have to confront then how to cope with non-residents? If you admire European universal systems, understand they “work” because they are limited. Break your leg in Britain as an American tourist, and you had better have travel insurance or lots of cash at the ready, because the British National Health Service (NHS) treats “for free” ONLY legal UK residents." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/4

re: "Barack Obama: Anti-Terror Warrior?"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") still has a liberal friend (or two).

Money quote(s):

"(H)e was also exercised that al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was not given a proper civilian trial before being executed. Irony challenged, my acquaintance.

As to Awlaki's citizenship, the facts are clear. Awlaki was an American citizen, but a citizen who took up arms against America. We know this because he explicitly told us, many times, that he was at war with America. We know that he was a top enemy commander and that he was directly involved in the planning and execution of attacks against America, American interests and Americans, attacks resulting in American deaths, the Fort Hood attack being only a single example.Arguably, this would make Awlaki guilty of treason, and if captured, he could be tried for that offense. However, capture and trial were not required for one very powerful and well understood—legally speaking—reason: we are at war.

It is hard for most Americans to understand this simple fact: we are at war and have been since at least the first attack on the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and probably since the Islamic takeover of Iran in late 1979. Because most Americans have to make no sacrifice, because the ongoing war does not disrupt or directly affect their lives in any way, the very concept of war seems a matter of semantics, a debating topic, not a deadly, personal or national reality. We will almost certainly be at war for a generation or more. We may not consider ourselves to be at war with our Islamist enemy, but he does not share our peaceful convictions.

In war, our declared enemies may be killed whenever and wherever they are found. This simple fact does not change because of the nationality of the enemy. This too is a well-settled fact of law. There are no clear demarcation lines on a worldwide battlefield. Americans have, in past wars, gone over to the side of America's enemies and have as a result become indistinguishable from any other enemy soldier or leader. We have killed them when necessary and captured them when possible. When captured they were tried by military commissions." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

These are facts, stated plainly and without adornment. It pains me how many of my fellow citizens, even some of my FS colleagues, seem not to understand them.

"Some have suggested that due to the unique nature of our current world wide conflict, the Congress should enact standards for stripping Americans of citizenship so that they may be killed without trial when acting as an enemy of America, but this is unnecessary and likely designed to impede rather than assist America in her war fighting efforts. American and international laws and standards are quite clear on all of the issues involved and have been since the early 1900s."

Standards already exist for expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship) as part of the public law, incorporated as part the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. I'm sure I don't understand why this hasn't been utilized, but I'm not sure it's ever even been considered in cases like these. Perhaps the legal bar is simply too high, would provide a public soapbox for avowed enemies of the U.S. as they (or their lawyers; i.e., lawfare) appealed such measures, and it's purely simpler (and just as legal) to kill them.

10/2

re: "No Foe, No Friend"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club discussed having it both ways (or not).

Money quote(s):

"Walter Russell Mead, writing in American Interest, believes the root of the problem is that the President wants to fight terrorism in two potentially contradictory ways: as a war and a non-war; as combat and as law enforcement. In his view the Al-Awlaki operation highlights the problem of trying to have it both ways at once."

It's interesting how this circle has been squared. Rightly or wrongly, then-presidential candidate Sen. Kerry was vilified for comparing international terrorism for comparing international terrorism to a law enforcement problem such as prostitution (IIRC). But keeping one's options open is generally thought to be a good thing.

"(W)hat Walter Russell Mead believes and what Barack Obama believes are two different things. While Mead may want clarity, Barack Obama is following the time honored political tradition of creating two sets of rules which he can separately invoke as convenience demands. When it suits him to act the “law enforcement officer” in order to mollify his left wing base and European opinion, then he will don that hat. When it suits him to act like a Commander in Chief to prevent the eventuation of a threat (which would lose votes), he will don the other other hat."

We should be thankful that sufficient motivation exists for acting like a commander in chief.

"The basic cultural problem is the media has conditioned the public not to be able to handle the truth. Certain segments of the public want safety but don’t want to be told how it is obtained."

"You can't handle the truth!"?

Well, judging by what we've seen of the Occupy Wall Street phenomena, Solyndra, and other stories, there's no desire on the parts of many to be told the truth, at least not by those who those many are likely to be listening.

"But trying telling the truth on the air and a whole line of pundits will queue up to call you a bigot and warmonger; except when the same set of people aren’t demanding that you do the opposite to be kept safe. Walter Russell Mead is right. You can’t have it both ways. But it is politically incorrect to say so. Therefore people like Judyth Hill of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation can say with a straight face that our response to September 11 should be to “make soup … Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and fresh mown fields”. This passes for wisdom and if you disagree you’re a bigot.

And since logic like that can stand as public policy, we will inevitably reap its logical conclusion. We’ll get fantasy for fantasy. A fantasy strategy will eventually result in an imaginary victory for the protection of imaginary rights. Because what goes around comes around. You get what you pay for. So what does US citizenship count for? What in a war or under law enforcement? It is ironic that no one realized that when the clear bright line between enemy and dissident was muddled that everyone would wind up in the same pot. When there are no enemies — except sometimes, then there will be no rights — except sometimes."

10/2

re: "Was it legal to kill al-Awlaki?"

Neo-Neocon ("slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon") is asking the right questions.

Money quote(s):

"Was it legal to kill al-Awlaki without due process, courtesy of drone?

Some will say “who cares? Good riddance.” But they are ignoring the importance of the issue and the possible danger of the precedent, while those who question the mission’s legality are asking a question that is necessary to confront: under what circumstances can a president order the liquidation of an American citizen (or possible former American citizen) without any courtroom procedure, even a military tribunal?"

Obviously, this question is only of interest to those 300,000 or so folks who happen to be U.S. citizens.

"Fighting international terrorism presents us with a different kind of war. That does not mean we can do whatever we want. But it does mean that the rules need developing and clarifying."

(10/1)

re: "The Left's Rage Over 'Assassination' Of US Citizens Begins"

Jason Bradley at Big Peace addresses some of the proper issues surrounding "Triple-A" 's death.

Money quote(s):

"Assassinating US citizens without due process is in fact wrong. But there is nothing basic about the kind of terrorists’ threats we face daily. We do not have drones patrolling the skies of Los Angles and we are not targeting American civilians in all out military offensive. These terrorists are not simply breaking laws. They are more than just your common criminal or gangbanger. They are continuously plotting to kill as many Americans as possible. They are financed and organized by governments and terrorists organizations that stretch the globe and have plenty of resources from which to operate. That makes them threatening in such a way that due-process would actually be a hindrance in protection of the homeland.

Al-Awlaki’s ‘citizenship’ is the product of an outdated and erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He is about as much of a citizen of the US as Osama bin Laden was. If he was truly a US citizen he would live here, pay his taxes, and be a productive member of society. If individuals like al-Awlaki can be considered a US citizen with a straight face, then perhaps there is need to approach the ideas that constitute citizenship. Al-Awlaki stopped being a US citizen the moment he sat down with terrorists and collaborated with them to kill American citizens."

1. Al-Awlaki got precisely the due process (under the laws of land warfare) that any other enemy of the United States gets; not a trial by jury in a courtroom, to be sure, but by targeteers and military commanders performing their lawful duties.

2. There are those who make this fairly reasonable argument, that children born to foreign citizens who are not themselves legal residents (a broader category than illegal aliens, by the way) in the U.S. aren't due American citizenship under 14th Amendment authority. So far this hasn't been the interpretation of the SCOTUS, but it's not that unreasonable an interpretation.

3. Mr. Bradley's point with regards to expatriation (i.e., loss of U.S. nationality), is meaningful and well-taken. There are existing laws, on the books, to strip U.S. citizenship from those who wage war against America. They ought to exercised.

(10/1)

AFP - US 'enemy's' secret weapon? The US passport, some say.

From my archive of press clippings:

AFP

US 'enemy's' secret weapon? The US passport, some say

Fri, May 07, 2010

AFP


US 'enemy's' secret weapon? The US passport, some say


NEW YORK - Islamist militants attacking the United States have a new secret weapon: the US passport.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Everything from hijacked airliners to handguns have featured in attacks on US soil over the last decade. Maybe the slim, blue booklet labeled PASSPORT, and decorated in gold with an eagle, should be added to that list.

Certainly US passports allow militants to infiltrate the country in a way no foreign jihadist could ever match. And if a militant is caught, he gets the same legal protections as everyone else in the country he was trying to fight."

"Border controls have been severely tightened since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

"So few disagree that a US passport might be valuable. It's also true that the number of citizens involved in terrorist incidents is steadily growing.
Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the failed Times Square car bomb, entered the United States on a student visa a decade ago and was granted citizenship in 2009.

US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a devout Muslim disturbed by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, gunned down 13 people and wounded 42 last November at the Fort Hood, Texas army base where he served.

Just a week ago a New York man, Sabirhan Hasanoff, was charged with helping Al-Qaeda.

Tellingly, this US citizen is accused by prosecutors, in part, of urging another citizen "not to use his US passport when traveling because a US passport with fewer immigration stamps would be more valuable to Al-Qaeda." "

"At issue is the question of what it means to be a citizen of one of the most open countries in the world - a country built on welcoming newcomers.

Some are using the fear of terrorism to push for a clampdown on the millions of illegal immigrants working and living productively here, often for years.

Proposals to grant those illegal immigrants amnesty "will legalize more terrorists," writes the right-wing Human Events."

&

"The left-leaning New York Times warns that undermining the inalienable rights of citizenship means entering "dark territory." "

NYT - Bill Targets Citizenship of Terrorists’ Allies

From my archive of press clippings:

New York Times

Bill Targets Citizenship of Terrorists’ Allies

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and CARL HULSE

Published: May 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — Proposed legislation that would allow the government to revoke American citizenship from people suspected of allying themselves with terrorists set off a legal and political debate Thursday that scrambled some of the usual partisan lines on civil-liberties issues.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Terrorist Expatriation Act, co-sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, would allow the State Department to revoke the citizenship of people who provide support to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or who attack the United States or its allies."

"Identical legislation is also being introduced in the House by two Pennsylvania congressmen, Jason Altmire, a Democrat, and Charlie Dent, a Republican. The lawmakers said at a news conference that revoking citizenship would block terrorism suspects from using American passports to re-enter the United States and make them eligible for prosecution before a military commission instead of a civilian court.
Citing with approval news reports that President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing the targeted killing of a radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Mr. Lieberman argued that if that policy was legal — and he said he believed it was — then stripping people of citizenship for joining terrorist organizations should also be acceptable.

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects."

&

"The proposal would amend an existing, although rarely used, program run by the State Department. It dates to a law enacted by Congress in 1940 that allowed the stripping of citizenship for activities like voting in another country’s elections or joining the army of a nation that is at war with the United States. People who lose their citizenship can contest the decision in court.

The Supreme Court later narrowed the program’s scope, declaring that the Constitution did not allow the government to take away people’s citizenship against their will. The proposal does not alter the requirement of evidence of voluntariness.

That means that if the proposal passed, the State Department would have to cite evidence that a person not only joined Al Qaeda, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship, and the advantages it conveys, to rescind it."

ABC12 - Local man tries to get daughter out of Haiti

From my archive of press clippings:

ABC12

Local man tries to get daughter out of Haiti

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Autumn Perry

FLINT (WJRT) -- (01/24/10) -- A local sheriff's deputy whose daughter was injured in the earthquake says he's running out of time.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Prisnor Pascal found his little girl nearly a week ago, but, but can't get her out of the country.

Pascal is a U.S. citizen. His daughter isn't."

&

"(T)he number-one priority is evacuating U.S. citizens.

When the earthquake hit, 45,000 U.S. citizens were living in Haiti. American officials are still trying to get many of them out of the country.

The second priority for the State Department is Haitian orphans who were being adopted by U.S. Citizens."

JO - Revoke visas of politicians, unscrupulous businessmen

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer


Revoke visas of politicians, unscrupulous businessmen

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Dear Editor,


The stink of Jamaica's corruption, to which most at home have grown accustomed, has finally begun to wrinkle the noses of our neighbours. While out of one side of our mouth we bemoan the depths to which we have sunk and wonder how we got this far, out of the other side we will call hellfire to rain down on anyone, any agency that dares to point out our shortcomings. Some of us will continue pretending we don't know the reason for Operation Visa Revocation, which seems to be the latest US "tough love" strategy designed to steer us off the path of delinquency and criminality.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Well, since we have been afraid to tag our big fish and call out our "players", the US is tagging them for us, and not even our duly elected leaders can take the pressure. After hearing about "the list", I can only imagine the mounting stress that some folks are going through, whether they have green card, citizenship or non-immigrant visa, since they don't have a clue what the US knows about the shady activities in their past, and if they will be disgraced."

"The mystery police superintendent whose visa has been revoked is said to have been under investigation for corruption, yet he is squealing for his lawyer to negotiate with the US regarding his visa."

"By now those in high places should realise that the US visa is not their right, and that their privileged status in that banana republic will not afford them any special privileges in the republic to the north. But why is the identity of the superintendent being protected by the media? Would his life be in danger if he were exposed?

The media should not aid in obstructing the lesson to be learnt from all this: one vital to other members of the force and the civilian population who think of the US as their alternate option when they run afoul of the law at home and need a hideout."

"The US is doing a great service for our nation."

&

"It is my fervent hope that the US will revoke the visa of every last politician and unscrupulous businessman in that miserable little island, until they realise it's all they have, and who knows, perhaps they'll begin to treat the citizens and the country with more respect."

Hunter Gray
Populierenlaan
Krimpen a/d IJssel
Netherlands
grayhunter19@yahoo.com

HC - U.S. citizens born at home face struggle for passports

From my archive of press clippings:

Houston Chronicle

U.S. citizens born at home face struggle for passports


By STATE SEN. EDDIE LUCIO JR.



Aug. 5, 2009, 8:04PM


On Jan. 20, 1946, a midwife delivered me in the Texas border town of Brownsville. This was not an uncommon happenstance, particularly at the time, when many women delivered their children at home with the assistance of such a health care provider.

Read the whole article here.

S&S - Army captain gets life sentence for wife's murder

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes

Army captain gets life sentence for wife's murder


By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes

Pacific edition, Saturday, March 28, 2009


Related story: Victim's mother 'glad that justice for Lea was made'


DAEGU, South Korea — Army Capt. Christopher Gray was sentenced Thursday to life in prison with eligibility for parole for the murder of his wife, Lea Gray.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Gray, 38, was also sentenced to dismissal from the military, a reprimand, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. He was convicted of premeditated murder and conduct unbecoming an officer after a jury of seven male Army officers deliberated about nine hours, beginning Wednesday and resuming Thursday morning.

The trial began Monday at Camp Henry in Daegu before military judge Col. Donna M. Wright.
Lea Gray’s decomposing, partly skeletonized body was found May 9 in a ditch in a wooded area about 4.5 miles east of Camp Carroll in Waegwan."

&

"Prosecutors said Gray — who was previously married and divorced and then met Lea Gray through an Internet dating service while he was stationed in Sinai, Egypt — became fed up with her repeated adulteries and other strains in their marriage. He also concluded she’d married him so she could use him to get U.S. citizenship, prosecutors told the jury.

On April 11, Gray wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeking to thwart his wife’s efforts to be granted citizenship, saying she lured him into a “sham marriage.” "

JO - The Daryl Vaz factor

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

The Daryl Vaz factor


Raulston Nembhard


Saturday, March 28, 2009


Mr Daryl Vaz must be congratulated for his resounding victory in the by-election in the West Portland constituency. His victory is a tribute to his tenacity and the hard work that he has been doing in the constituency over the past 18 months. No one can begrudge him the victory; it was his to win or lose and from the very beginning he was determined to win.

Raulston Nembhard

Whatever one may say about Mr Vaz he cannot be faulted for his tenacity and apparent genuine commitment to the people of West Portland. From the time he became caretaker of the constituency he has worked assiduously to win their confidence. It was clear to them that he was not a fly-by-night politician who was prepared to shed tears and present a veneer of concern for their plight. Deep down the people know that those who do those things are interested only in feathering their own nests. They saw in Vaz someone who genuinely cared about what mattered to them. Even some PNP-ites could not help but admit that he did work, but out of partisan loyalty they could not bring themselves to vote for him.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Young politicians have a lot to learn from a Daryl Vaz. One gets the distinct impression that there are far too many of the young breed of politicians who are wedded to a failed political paradigm that has impoverished Jamaica. Like many of their older counterparts they are in it for what they can get from it. They are not driven by an abiding fidelity to a set of core values which lead to integrity and credibility. It has to be more than what he could get out of politics that could have motivated Vaz to give up his coveted United States citizenship in order to represent a group of people in Parliament, and at a time when retaining that citizenship could be easily justified."

_____

stead6655@aol.com

www.drraulston.com

S&S - In victim’s apartment, some clothes, a lot of tears

Stars and Stripes



In victim’s apartment, some clothes, a lot of tears


By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes

Pacific edition, Sunday, April 5, 2009


Convicted former captain moved to Leavenworth facility


PYEONGTAEK, South Korea — Former Army Capt. Christopher Gray has been flown out of South Korea to the U.S. Army’s prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., officials said Friday.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"A military jury on March 26 sentenced Gray, 38, to life in prison with eligibility for parole for the April 20 murder of his wife Lea Gray, 27.

The jury also sentenced him to dismissal from the military, a reprimand, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances."

&

"Prosecutors said Gray killed his wife by administering a lethal dose of an over-the-counter medication because he’d tired of her adultery. They said he’d concluded she married him only to get U.S. citizenship. He stuffed her body into a suitcase and dumped her in a wooded area north of town, prosecutors said."

LAT - College Board steps into the immigration debate

Los Angeles Times

College Board steps into the immigration debate

Trustees of the association that administers the SAT vote to support the Dream Act, which would offer some undocumented youths a path to citizenship through college or the military.


By Ben Meyerson


April 22, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The College Board is supporting legislation that would offer some undocumented youths a path to citizenship through college or the military.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The association best known for the SAT and AP tests it administers is stepping into the contentious issue for the first time, just as President Obama is signaling that he may encourage lawmakers to overhaul immigration laws this year. The board's trustees have voted unanimously to support the legislation, known as the Dream Act."

&

"The bill would allow students who illegally entered the U.S. when they were 15 or younger to apply for conditional legal resident status if they have lived in the country for five or more years and graduated from high school or received a GED. If they attended college or served in the military for two or more years, they could be granted citizenship.

Conditional legal status could make the immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition, depending on local laws, and would allow them to compete for some forms of federal financial assistance."

_____



bmeyerson@tribune.com



Times staff writer Gale Holland contributed to this report.

JG - Appeal Court tells all

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner

Appeal Court tells all

Published: Sunday March 15, 2009

The Court of Appeal has said in its very detailed reasons for upholding Chief Justice Zaila McCalla's ruling that there should be a by-election in the West Portland constituency, that the "electorate are not to have imposed upon them a person for whom the majority of them did not cast their votes".

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"People's National Party candidate, Abe Dabdoub, had filed an election petition after the September 3, 2007, general election, contending that Member of Parliament (MP) Daryl Vaz had dual citizenship and was not entitled to be an MP.

Chief Justice Zaila McCalla heard the election petition and ruled that because Vaz, who had inherited American citizenship from his mother, obtained a United States passport as an adult and travelled on it, he had pledged allegiance to a foreign power.

The chief justice ruled that Vaz was not eligible to sit in Parliament and ordered a by-election."

JO - Court says by-election. Vaz, Dabdoub to face voters again for West Portland seat.

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Court says by-election


Vaz, Dabdoub to face voters again for West Portland seat


PAUL HENRY, Observer staff reporter henryp@jamaicaobserver.com


Saturday, February 28, 2009


WEST Portlanders will be going to the polls in March to select a member of parliament following the Court of Appeal's refusal yesterday to hand over the seat to People's National Party (PNP) candidate Abe Dabdoub who had waged a long and intricate legal battle to unseat the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP's) Daryl Vaz.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Dabdoub had asked justices Seymour Panton, Algernon Smith and Karl Harrison to disqualify Vaz on the ground that Vaz held US citizenship and hand him (Dabdoub) the West Portland seat.

The justices, however, upheld the April 11, 2008 ruling of Chief Justice Zaila McCalla that a by-election be held upon Vaz's disqualification."

"Following the ruling, Vaz, who last year renounced his US citizenship to contest the by-election, said he was relieved that the court did not hand over the seat to Dabdoub."

"A disappointed Jalil Dabdoub, the junior counsel for Abe Dabdoub, said the ruling was a "blow to democracy" and did not rule out the possibility of an appeal to the London-based Privy Council where, according some legal minds, the matter could be taken as a constitutional issue."

JG - Dual citizenship, budget and values

Jamaica Gleaner

Dual citizenship, budget and values


Published: Sunday March 15, 2009


Ian Boyne


We could be in for a political crisis (or a series of by-elections) if the Speaker of the House decides to take a roll call on those members who have dual citizenship or American green cards. Street perception is that when it comes to wanting the 'good life' that Uncle Sam affords, there is no political division among our political leaders.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Some people feel strongly about this matter of our parliamentarians having dual citizenship or divided loyalties as they see it.

Speaker of the House Delroy Chuck has gone further and has asserted that the Court's ruling makes it untenable for parliamentarians who have green cards to sit in the House.

Many persons believe that aside from the legal technicalities and constitutional issues, it is inherently immoral or unconscionable for someone to be making laws for Jamaicans and yet be able to escape the consequences of his actions by being able to fly off to North America or wherever while the rest of us suffer here.

Some say they need no ruling by any chief justice, Court of Appeal or any constitutional amendment to know that.

They feel passionately that people who make laws and who wield political power must know that they have to stay here and face whatever results from their actions. At heart, they feel this is an issue of moral authority and legitimacy."

"There are some people who would regard their United States (US) citizenship or their green card as their most valuable possession.

For despite the money they might have in Jamaica, because of their fears about what could happen here, they take comfort in the fact that they can fly out at any time and that they have the great US to defend their interests."

&

"There are some persons who actually thought that Daryl Vaz was actually foolish to give up his US citizenship to sit in Parliament, for he cannot guarantee how long he will be in government and he might not be able to get back his citizenship after he vacates office."