It takes more than a language to unify a nation

[Dave Wilton]

Yes. The 14th Amendment reads, in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

Virtually every attempt (except in one circumstance) to strip someone of
their citizenship has been rejected by the courts. The citizens choose their
government; the government cannot choose its citizens. The one exception are
those naturalized under false pretenses (e.g., Nazi war criminals who lied
about their past on their citizenship applications). Even those who have
voluntarily renounced their US citizenship must usually be accepted back if
they request it.


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
David Bergdahl
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:38 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: It takes more than a language to unify a nation

Isn't it the 14th Amendment?
-db

On 2/26/07, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC <Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
> Subject:      Re: It takes more than a language to unify a nation
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> =20
>
>
> >Aside---someone should inform Congressman King that the rule=20
> >about a person born in the US automatically being a US citizen is,=20
> >if I remember correctly, due to a Supreme Court ruling and=20
> >therefore cannot be changed by Congress.
> =20
> Not necessarily -- if the Supreme Court was interpreting a Federal
> statute, then Congress (and the President) could change the interpreted
> law, and the Supreme Court ruling might well be moot.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org