[QUOTE=ewmayer;544985]IIRC correctly to become a US citizen required at least 5 years of continuous residence, passing of a lengthy exam (many of whose questions most USians-by-birth would be hard-pressed to get right), answering 'no' to a slew of are-you-a-Nazi questions (even in '84, even when one's age clearly ruled out NSDP membership) and renunciation of previous citizenship.[/QUOTE]
Some years back I helped a neighbor's Canadian wife study for her citizenship exam. I loaned her my pocket Constitution, which was up-to-date with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, and read questions from copies of previous exams which had been provided by their attorney.

I gleefully pointed out that the lawyer's information that there were twenty-[i]six[/i] Amendments to the US Constitution was out of date.

She passed the exam easily, and became a US Citizen.

US citizenship laws have changed over the years. One of my great-aunts, though born in the US, [i]lost her citizenship[/i] when she married a foreigner who had not yet become a citizen. The same thing happened to one of my grandparents' neighbors. In both cases, they only found out they'd lost their citizenship when they went to vote, and found they had been stricken from the rolls. IIRC they regained their citizenship when their husbands became naturalized citizens.

That reminds me. One of the questions on the citizenship exams I was reading out to my neighbor's wife was, "What is the most important right of citizenship?" She immediately gave the correct response, "The right to [i][b]vote[/b][/i]."

The Social Studies teacher in the public school I attended required all her students to pass the same Citizenship Exam given to those seeking to become naturalized citizens, in order to pass eighth grade Social Studies.

And you had to pass Social Studies in order to graduate.

:goodposting:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;545048]S
That reminds me. One of the questions on the citizenship exams I was reading out to my neighbor's wife was, "What is the most important right of citizenship?" She immediately gave the correct response, "The right to [i][b]vote[/b][/i]."

.[/QUOTE]

Says who??

The answer to the question is purely a matter of opinion. To some, the right to trial
by jury might be the most important (1). Or the right to remain silent. Or the right to
freedom of speech. I maintain that there is no single "correct" answer.

(1) Without it, think of having a Klan member as judge.......It is bad enough already in
the South.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;545076]
To some, the right to trial
by jury might be the most important (1). Or the right to remain silent. Or the right to
freedom of speech.[/QUOTE]

Don't you get all of that even without citizenship?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;545076][QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;545048]S
That reminds me. One of the questions on the citizenship exams I was reading out to my neighbor's wife was, "What is the most important right of citizenship?" She immediately gave the correct response, "The right to [i][b]vote[/b][/i]."

.[/QUOTE]

Says who?? [/quote]Says the folks giving the test. And who decide whether the applicant taking the test gets to become a citizen. Go argue with them.

[QUOTE=axn;545079]Don't you get all of that even without citizenship?[/QUOTE]

Ask the prisoners at Guantanomo.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;545081]Ask the prisoners at Guantanomo.[/QUOTE]

Note also that if you are here on a green card you can be deported without any trial
according to the whims of the INS.

:goodposting:Bob.

Of course Dr. Sardonicus' point relates to passing the exam rather than what he actually thinks is the most important right.

And one could respond by saying Obama took upon himself the right to execute US citizens without trial so even citizenship doesn't confer that right to jury trial anymore.

[QUOTE=garo;545088]And one could respond by saying Obama took upon himself the right to execute US citizens without trial so even citizenship doesn't confer that right to jury trial anymore.[/QUOTE]
I think referring to the killing of Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki simply as "executing a US citizen" is disingenuous. He was waging war on the US, and was unlikely to submit to arrest (for treason, or perhaps some other charge) and transport back to the US. I suppose he could, in theory, have been tried [i]in absentia[/i]. It might also be reasonably argued that he had effectively renounced his US citizenship.

And, of course, executing US citizens without trial -- often with the complicity of local law enforcement, acting as accessories or even accomplices -- is nothing new. Another quote from an [url=https://apnews.com/b30b5801ad5b0ff962644e927070c81d]article[/url] I [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=544562&postcount=211]recently mentioned[/url] over in the "This Day In History" thread:
[quote]"I watched in horror as Martin was immediately taken from the courtroom, his hands in metal cuffs behind his back," Mrs. King recalled in her autobiography. "Martin later told me that the terrors of southern justice, wherein scores of black men were plucked from their cells and never seen again, ran through his mind."[/quote]Lynchings used to be commonplace. And the victims of lynchings often weren't even accused of any crime. They were simply "uppity" or "didn't know their place." Emmett Till is perhaps the best-known example. His murderers were acquitted by jury nullification.

Some people having the effrontery to try to get n:censored:rs registered to vote, or to secure other rights already enshrined in law, paid with their lives. Medgar Evers. James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner. Viola Liuzzo. How many others? God only knows.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;545094] I suppose he could, in theory, have been tried [i]in absentia[/i].[/QUOTE]
Yes.


[QUOTE] It might also be reasonably argued that he had effectively renounced his US citizenship.[/QUOTE]
No.

[QUOTE]And, of course, executing US citizens without trial -- often with the complicity of local law enforcement, acting as accessories or even accomplices -- is nothing new.[/QUOTE]
So what.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;545081]Ask the prisoners at Guantanomo.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but they aren't in the USA and the normal laws don't apply to them. If Cuba wanted to do something about it, they could.