Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

David Marx wrote:

> MrFalafel wrote:
>
>> David Marx > wrote in message
>> ink.net>...
>>
>>> MrFalafel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David Marx > wrote in message
>>>> k.net>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Richard Miller" > wrote in message
>>>>>> thlink.net>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> place?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the
>>>>>> flavours you like.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write FLAVORS, not
>>>>> "flavours". You are not British.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey look! It's my fan club! :wave:
>>>>
>>>> FYI the UK Home Office has granted me a UK passport and all rights and
>>>> privileges of a UK citizen.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, of a legally resident alien.

>>
>>
>>
>> No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK.

>
>
> So, you renounced your American citizenship?


Well? Did you renounce your American citizenship, Jon?

>
>
>> I can vote, run for office and all the rest. And I can write in british
>> english!
>>
>>
>>>> So, I can post in 'british' english as
>>>> much as I like.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can post in pig-latin, for all I give a crap. However, it's
>>> pretentious for you to post in British English, especially when it's
>>> excruciatingly obvious that you're only doing so as an affectation.
>>> By the way, the British and the Americans both write "'British'
>>> English", as both are proper names.
>>>

>>
>>
>> So, you don't give a crap if I post in pig latin but you do give a
>> crap if I post in british english?

>
>
> Your use of British English is affected. That kind of affectation is
> offensive per se.
>
>>
>> How bizarre.

>
>
> Not really.
>
>>
>> I produce documentation as part of my job. My employer obviously
>> prefers to recieve this documentation in british english.

>
>
> Usenet is not your employer. I expect your employer also expects you to
> write "British" and "English", and to spell the word "receive", not
> "recieve". You seem to play fast and loose with your written language,
> affecting British usage for some reason, being slovenly with your proper
> nouns for some other.
>
>> I have
>> painstakingly re-trained myself to write in british english as most of
>> my written correspondence is with british folks. I am not going to
>> re-train myself to write in american english as there is no point.

>
>
> Cut the crap. You're too inconsistent in your usage to get away with
> any "training" excuse.
>
>>
>> I'm amazed to see someone so bothered by this. You must have a very
>> simple life.

>
>
> I'm always greatly bothered by people with snobbish affectations. It
> calls their entire character into question.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It's officially sanctioned by David Blunkett.
>>>>
>>>> I post american recipes in 'american', british recipes in 'british'
>>>> and I've even posted german recipes in german... Isn't the diversity
>>>> of the english language grand?
>>>>
>>>> 'Spelling trolls' is beneath even you folks. May I suggest a hobby of
>>>> some sort? Perhaps some fresh air?

>
>


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

MrFalafel wrote:

> usual suspect > wrote in message >...
>
>>David Marx wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK.
>>>
>>>So, you renounced your American citizenship?

>>
>>Very interesting. Did he ever answer this question?
>>
>><...>

>
>
> I love how my fan club is interested in every facet of my life!


You don't have a fan club, Lindsay, and I was only interested if you'd
renounced your citizenship. I don't give a rat's ass about your life.

> No, I haven't renounced my US citizenship. My US passport has lapsed


Why?

> and I now travel on my UK passport. I'm 'dual' status as far as the US
> is concerned.


Sure you are.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise


usual suspect > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >><not going to do your homework; try Google>

>
> You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you disagree
> with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs. What SPECIFICALLY
> is wrong with that assessment given the fact that vegans do little or
> nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING -- about collateral deaths and casualties from
> agriculture? Why is veganism only about avoiding animal parts, not
> animal deaths or suffering? Why do vegans make ethical claims and
> present themselves as morally superior despite the fact that animals
> still die -- in greater numbers -- to make their food?
>
> >>>>Let me modify what I said.
> >>>>The rest of the time you get really snippy.
> >>>
> >>>Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it?
> >>
> >>Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty.

> >

OK <snip, ducky>

Didn't see the start of this thread so sorry if anyone's already mentioned
Plamil Vegan Mayonnaise. It ain't bad. Comes in garlic and non-garlic
varieties.

Marks and Spensive's Hoummous makes a good substitute too.

Nemo


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Marx
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

MrFalafel wrote:

> usual suspect > wrote in message >...
>
>>David Marx wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK.
>>>
>>>So, you renounced your American citizenship?

>>
>>Very interesting. Did he ever answer this question?
>>
>><...>

>
>
> I love how my fan club is interested in every facet of my life!
>
> No, I haven't renounced my US citizenship. My US passport has lapsed
> and I now travel on my UK passport. I'm 'dual' status as far as the US
> is concerned.


You are a liar.

Section 349 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended, states that nationals of the United
States, whether by birth or naturalization, are
subject to loss of citizenship if they perform
certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to
relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these
acts include:

1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state
(Sec. 349(a)(1) INA);

http://www.usemb.nl/casdual.htm


If you are a U.S. citizen, you cannot enter the U.S. on
a foreign passport.

Q. I have both a U.S. and British Passport. Can I use
either to travel to the United States?

A. No. Under U.S. law, U.S. citizens must be in
possession of a U.S. passport to enter or leave the
United States. This is true even if you hold a
passport from another country. If your U.S. passport
has been lost or stolen, or if it has expired, you
must apply to replace it before traveling to the
United States.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web...-citz.htm#five

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Marx
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

usual suspect wrote:

> MrFalafel wrote:
>
>> usual suspect > wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>> David Marx wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you renounced your American citizenship?
>>>
>>>
>>> Very interesting. Did he ever answer this question?
>>>
>>> <...>

>>
>>
>>
>> I love how my fan club is interested in every facet of my life!

>
>
> You don't have a fan club, Lindsay, and I was only interested if you'd
> renounced your citizenship. I don't give a rat's ass about your life.
>
>> No, I haven't renounced my US citizenship. My US passport has lapsed

>
>
> Why?
>
>> and I now travel on my UK passport. I'm 'dual' status as far as the US
>> is concerned.

>
>
> Sure you are.


He's lying. One can be a dual national by birth, but
not by acquisition. In order to acquire citizenship in
a foreign country, one must give up American
citizenship. Furthermore, if one is an American
citizen, one may ONLY enter the U.S. on a U.S. passport.



  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

David Marx wrote:
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you renounced your American citizenship?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting. Did he ever answer this question?
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I love how my fan club is interested in every facet of my life!

>>
>>
>>
>> You don't have a fan club, Lindsay, and I was only interested if you'd
>> renounced your citizenship. I don't give a rat's ass about your life.
>>
>>> No, I haven't renounced my US citizenship. My US passport has lapsed

>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> and I now travel on my UK passport. I'm 'dual' status as far as the US
>>> is concerned.

>>
>>
>>
>> Sure you are.

>
> He's lying.


I know he is. I still want to know why he let his passport "lapse" while
abroad (stoooooooooooooooooopid); a friend at DoS is checking on UK visa
status for individuals with invalid/expired passports.

> One can be a dual national by birth, but not by
> acquisition. In order to acquire citizenship in a foreign country, one
> must give up American citizenship. Furthermore, if one is an American
> citizen, one may ONLY enter the U.S. on a U.S. passport.


Easy enough to fill out a DS82 and pay the fee, but one also has to
declare and surrender any other passports when re-entering the US.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise (REPOST for Strutz - ANSWER the questions this time)

This is the post containing the questions you refused
to answer the first time, SeeJames. I already reposted
it once, and you ignored it.


C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news >
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>>>"Each to his own";
>>>>
>>>>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it
>>>>comes to ethics.
>>>
>>>A generalization...

>>
>>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part.

>
>
> Your opinion.


He has demonstrated that his opinions merit
consideration. Yours don't.

Your belief that a generalization is only a ("mere")
opinion is false. Try this one: "Americans speak
English." "Fact" or "'mere' opinion"? GENERALLY true,
or GENERALLY false?

You stupid putz.

I have a friend who used to be like you. I'd make a
generalization, and after moment's reflection - but he
should have taken 10 minutes - he'd complain that I had
made a generalization. I'd always laugh and say, "You
don't *really* object to my having made a
generalization; you merely don't LIKE the
generalization I made!"

And that's true with you, SeeJames. You don't *really*
object to generalizations, whether of fact or opinion,
because you make them yourself: "Generalizing specific
groups of people is always a bad thing to do" is,
itself, a generalization. It is a generalized OPINION,
not a "fact" as you stupidly claimed.

No, you (I can't resist!) generally don't object to
generalizations; you merely objected to the PARTICULAR
generalization I made, because you felt, correctly,
that it was saying something unflattering about you.
Your feeling, however, does not alter the truth and
usefulness of the generalization. In fact, your
feeling is wholly irrelevant.


>>>I eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience.

>>
>>Is an egg sentient?

>
>
> I don't think so.


So you approve of human abortion, then.

>
>
>>>I think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under
>>>extenuating circumstances.

>>
>>Which extenuating circumstances are those?

>
>
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened
> are two examples that I can think of.


So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the course
of that production is, unequivocally in your view,
morally wrong. So, why do you participate in this orgy
of death that you *necessarily* view as morally wrong?

>
>
>>>Attn: Jon Ball, et. al. Okay, I understand the
>>>issue that thousands of sentient lives are lost as a result of producing
>>>the vegetables I buy. That's just the way it is right now.

>>
>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to you, why are eggs so
>>taboo?

>
>
> I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from??


More to the point, why are the collateral deaths of
animals that are NOT covered by your weasel-worded
"extenuating circumstances" morally acceptable to you?

>
>
>>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh --
>>unacceptable?

>
>
> Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me.


What's the difference between that and eggs? Animal
protein is animal protein.

>
>
>>>Sorry...

>>
>>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of
>>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's.

>
>
> No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder.


You didn't obviate anything, SeeJames; I don't believe
you even know what the word means. What you did was
jump into a stinking cesspool of hypocrisy, so that
your nose is almost covered by the slime. You have
said you think it's wrong to kill sentient animals
except "under [SIC] extenuating circumstances", yet you
cheerily participate in the killing of massive numbers
of sentient animals whose deaths aren't covered by your
"extenuating circumstances". Maybe my cesspool
metaphor isn't the best; perhaps I should point out
that you are on the horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil?

>
>
>>>>>You can always take your own potato salad to BK.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe where *you* live, but most locales have food safety laws which
>>>>forbid taking food from other sources (home, other restaurants) into
>>>>restaurants.
>>>
>>>Well, maybe so. Guess I just assumed since I've never seen the food
>>>police in any of the restaurants here.

>>
>>Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you
>>try to take food into their restaurants.


Those laws, of course, are shams. Their intent isn't
really to protect public health; it's to prevent
competition.

>
>
> Did you ever try it?
>
>
>>>>>>BK does have veggie burgers,
>>>>>>and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them.
>>>>>
>>>>>And the point is??
>>>>
>>>>The OP mentioned BK. I wanted him to know vegan "experts" like Mr Marcus
>>>>approve of BK. He can stop disparaging the place.
>>>
>>>Then I will. BK sucks.

>>
>>You're just mad because they don't have potato salad.

>
>
> Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did.


This is an aesthetic judgment, that's all. You don't
have any substantive objection to the place, you're
just trying to show you're stylish, according to your
political beliefs. Ho-hum.



  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions.
>>>
>>>That's untrue.

>>
>>No, James, it's true.
>>
>>
>>>I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours.

>>
>>I've asked a couple times what part(s) of my opinion you found
>>objectionable.

>
>
> I've lost the context of what you asked. Ask me a specific question and I
> will answer it.
>
>
>>>The
>>>exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't

>
> care to
>
>>>repeat myself.

>>
>>You only repeat yourself if you actually answer the question. You didn't.

>
>
> Guess you got me there. Let me modify my statement. I'll answer your
> questions as long as they're not repetitive.
>
>
>>>>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you.
>>>
>>>That's also untrue.

>>
>>No, both sentences are true. Asking someone to support statements isn't
>>an act of torment, it's a form of discussion, debate, and even
>>intellectual curiosity.

>
>
> It's very obvious that his questions are intended to provoke and antagonize
> people.


No, that's not so. At least, there is no *gratuitous*
provocation. I'm trying to provoke some critical
thinking and honest examination, because I feel there
is sound evidence to suggest that anyone who adheres to
some form of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism
demonstrates a complete absence of such thinking.

> If he were to ask them in a civil and respectful manner, more people
> would respond in kind.


My questions, and the dialogue leading to them, is
entirely civil and respectful. Tell me what's uncivil
or disrespectful about the question at the end of this
exchange, a question you have thus far refused to answer:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.


Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?


SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.


Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


Same with this one:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?


SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.


Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?


SeeJames:
> I don't know.


Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And with this one:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?


I think you simply don't LIKE the unpleasant truths
these questions illustrate, SeeJames. Thus, your
tactic: you avoid answering, and when someone else
then objects to your evasion, you casually dismiss the
questions as "uncivil", without even saying what the
questions are. YOU have brought up the idea that
someone is "playing games" in the discussion, SeeJames,
and the person playing games is you.

> Trust me, I'm not the only one who notices this. You
> are being preferential.
>
>
>>>I have not been nasty in a long time.

>>
>>At least you admit that you have been nasty.

>
>
> I never denied it.


Yes, you did, but don't bother. Just answer the questions.

>
>
>>Let me modify what I said.
>>The rest of the time you get really snippy.

>
>
> Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it? I tend to get "snippy" when
> I feel provoked. I just want to be treated respectfully and without the
> games. It's not too much to ask...
>
>
>>>If you have evidence to the contrary
>>>then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative,
>>>abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every
>>>opportunity. He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you

>
> falsely
>
>>>accuse me of being nasty.

>>
>>I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's
>>behaving with civility.

>
>
> Barely. How about yesterday, or the day before?


Why don't you just answer the entirely civil questions?

>
>
>>>It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that?

>>
>>A level playing field between you and me or between you and another person?

>
> I was talking about the dialog between you and me in this case. You side
> with Jon, ignore his abuse of people and even participate in it yourself,
> and play games to disadvantage other people (see the following response to
> the BK part of this thread as an example).
>
>
>>>>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your

>
> nose
>
>>>>>>>at BK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat.
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong with their food?
>>>
>>>I never said that anything's wrong with their food.

>>
>>If there's nothing wrong with their food, why won't you go to their
>>restaurants?

>
>
> Go back and read it. I wrote: "I never said that anything's wrong with their
> food", not "there's nothing wrong with their food". You subtly twist things
> around to make it sound like I said something I didn't.


If you explicitly said, "I never said that anything's
wrong with their food", when asked what's wrong with
their food, then the implication is that you think
"there's nothing wrong with their food".

There's no twisting going on. You're just being
typically evasive, and when someone pins you down, you
get snippy.

> Then you ask the
> question: "why won't you go to their restaurants?" based on your faulty
> premise. I answered it previously with "because there's nothing at BK that I
> care to eat". It's an example of me having to repeat myself to your
> questions. And you wonder why I get "snippy"...


Actually, I don't think anyone wonders at all.


Now, answer the questions.

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stephen Gallagher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise

(snip)

> > One can be a dual national by birth, but not by
> > acquisition.


That was correct at one tiime, but not anymore. Due to some
previous US Supreme Court cases, and State Department
policy changes, a US citizen can acquire other citizenships
without losing his US citizenship, as long as it is his intention
to keep his US citizenship. The person's intention is what
matters. The State Department has an administrative standard
whereby the presume that a US citizen who acquires another
citizenship, does so with the intent of keeping his US citizenship.

> > In order to acquire citizenship in a foreign country, one
> > must give up American citizenship.


Sometimes the "other" country will require that the person
give up his orignal citizenship, but a US citizen who takes
another citizenship is not required by the US to give up
his US citizenship.

> > Furthermore, if one is an American
> > citizen, one may ONLY enter the U.S. on a U.S. passport.


That is correct. A person who holds US citizenship must
enter the US on his US passport, even if he is also a citizen
of another country and has (or is entitled to hold) the other
country's passport.

> Easy enough to fill out a DS82 and pay the fee, but one also has to
> declare and surrender any other passports when re-entering the US.


No, the US has no such requirement.

A very good website that discusses the US policies on dual
citizenship can be found at: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
It also contains pointers to various US government websites
which explain the US policies.

Stephen Gallagher

P.S. I am a citizen of three countries, the US(by birth), Canada(by
naturalization),
and the UK(by descent). I have passports from all three countries.
UK.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise and citizenship

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> (snip)
>
>
>>>One can be a dual national by birth, but not by
>>>acquisition.

>
>
> That was correct at one tiime, but not anymore. Due to some
> previous US Supreme Court cases, and State Department
> policy changes, a US citizen can acquire other citizenships
> without losing his US citizenship, as long as it is his intention
> to keep his US citizenship. The person's intention is what
> matters. The State Department has an administrative standard
> whereby the presume that a US citizen who acquires another
> citizenship, does so with the intent of keeping his US citizenship.


Do you know when this changed?

>
>
>>>In order to acquire citizenship in a foreign country, one
>>>must give up American citizenship.

>
>
> Sometimes the "other" country will require that the person
> give up his orignal citizenship, but a US citizen who takes
> another citizenship is not required by the US to give up
> his US citizenship.
>
>
>>>Furthermore, if one is an American
>>>citizen, one may ONLY enter the U.S. on a U.S. passport.

>
>
> That is correct. A person who holds US citizenship must
> enter the US on his US passport, even if he is also a citizen
> of another country and has (or is entitled to hold) the other
> country's passport.
>
>
>>Easy enough to fill out a DS82 and pay the fee, but one also has to
>>declare and surrender any other passports when re-entering the US.

>
>
> No, the US has no such requirement.
>
> A very good website that discusses the US policies on dual
> citizenship can be found at: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
> It also contains pointers to various US government websites
> which explain the US policies.
>
> Stephen Gallagher
>
> P.S. I am a citizen of three countries, the US(by birth), Canada(by
> naturalization),
> and the UK(by descent). I have passports from all three countries.


When you say citizen of the UK by descent, do you mean
you were born in the U.S. to UK citizen parents?



  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stephen Gallagher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mayonnaise and citizenship

> > (snip)
> >
> >
> >>>One can be a dual national by birth, but not by
> >>>acquisition.

> >
> >
> > That was correct at one tiime, but not anymore. Due to some
> > previous US Supreme Court cases, and State Department
> > policy changes, a US citizen can acquire other citizenships
> > without losing his US citizenship, as long as it is his intention
> > to keep his US citizenship. The person's intention is what
> > matters. The State Department has an administrative standard
> > whereby the presume that a US citizen who acquires another
> > citizenship, does so with the intent of keeping his US citizenship.

>
> Do you know when this changed?


The changes took place over a period of about 20 years.

The Supreme Court case of Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967,
first established that, based on the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution, a person born or naturalized in the US
was entitled to US citizenship. What this did was to add the
requirement that for a person to lose his US citizenship he
had to intend to give it up. But that led to the issue of how
should a person's intentions be determined.

At first, the State Department wanted to play hardball,
and they would usually take the position that a US
citizen who naturalized abroad, or who swore allegiance
to another country, or performed one of the other acts
that may cause loss of citizenship, must have intended
to give up his citizenship. But in 1980, the Supreme Court
case of Vance v. Terrazas led to a requirement that a person's
intention be proven separately from the action he performed.
In other words, the fact that a person performed a potentially
expatriating action could not be used, in and of itself, as
proof that the person intended to give up his US citizenship.
His intentions would have to be proven separately. Because
of this, in 1986, Congress amended US nationality to require that
loss of citizenship would happen only when a potentially
expatriating action was performed voluntarily and with the
intention of giving up US citizenship.

Lastly, in 1990, the State Department implemented a new policy
where US citizens who perform a potentially expatriating act
are normally presumed to have done so without any intent to give
up US citizenship. Unless they specifically tell the State Department
that they intended to give up their US citizenship when they performed
the potentially expatriating act, they will not lose it.

(snip)
> >
> > P.S. I am a citizen of three countries, the US(by birth), Canada(by
> > naturalization),
> > and the UK(by descent). I have passports from all three countries.

>
> When you say citizen of the UK by descent, do you mean
> you were born in the U.S. to UK citizen parents?


Yes. One of my parents is British and one is American.

Stephen
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a mayonnaise for the BLT!! Bob Terwilliger[_1_] General Cooking 32 22-08-2009 06:15 PM
OMG: a mayonnaise for the BLT!! Lin General Cooking 1 16-08-2009 05:41 PM
OMG: a mayonnaise for the BLT!! Bob Muncie General Cooking 7 15-08-2009 10:55 PM
Mayonnaise? Corey Richardson[_3_] General Cooking 94 03-09-2008 11:39 PM
LC-REC Mayonnaise Hahabogus General Cooking 0 05-02-2005 03:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"