You are really becoming insufferable. I despise Ayn Rand. Your Straw Man efforsts are beginning to feel personal.
You are mistaking me for someone else.
I never said that it was idioticof America to grant citizenship to the children of Mexican illegal immigrants. I live in California in the sixties in a Spanish speaking area and marched with Cesar Chavez. I still have many friends from that area and from that era who were previously such immigrants and they and their families are now citizens.
Your attacks are now personal abuse and I am reporting this to the mods.
Jewish Americans are not an “out group”. I also don’t know what post your referring to where you “explain it”.
Oh, so what university did you teach at and where do you “occasionally” teach at?
Apologies then. I thought you haughtily declared that the UK did not share the view of the US that everyone should be granted citizenship due to “an accident of birth”?
Did I misremember?
What “personal” attacks have I made?
You’re the one who’s IIRC been modded at least twice. I’ve also been careful to describe beliefs, not you. You’re the one who seems to be making personal attacks.
That IIRC is a hangover from Germany post war with East German suspected spies and infiltration. They had a list of banned people who could not exercise certain civil rights.
I suspect that that has now been superseded by case law.
Errr… okay. By your own admission you indicated you at least used to be an instructor at a university.
My asking which one wasn’t meant as an insult and I’m genuinely surprised you’re so defensive.
FWIW, I wasn’t planning on making fun of whatever response you would have given and I have friends who teach at Rutgers University, Rhode Island College, Community College of Rhode Island, and Yale University, all of whom I have equal respect for.
Not that, I think. SFAIK East Germans were never “aliens” in the Federal Republic; they were German citizens in every way. (And vice versa.)
Not entirely. Nationals of EU member states are not “aliens” in other EU member states for the purposes of this Article (Piermont -v- France), but in theory the states could still rely on article 16 to impose restrictions on the political activity of, e.g., US citizens. I don’t know if any state actually does so.
I suspect that article 16 has to do with a fear of having domestic political movements financed and controlled by, and acting as a front for, foreign interests.
Oh, I agree- they are similar. But the original point being made was that use of private property by the state was allowable in Europe but not in the USA. Eminent Domain contradicts that.
You have a major problem with Truth and qualifiers.
I said
“The UK recognises birthright by place of birth for settled people. Germany does not. Others vary.”
Note the word “Settled” which qualifies people.
People who are settled- legal residents in the UK with right to remain or other similar status do gain citizenship for their children. Tourists (and illegal immigrants) do not because they are not settled.
I am beginning to think that you are just stalking me and when you see a post that I make, you are firing off ill-informed and aggressive answers just for the sake of it.
I don’t know of any case where a state has *explicitly *relied on Article 16 to do so, i.e. cases where a restriction on “alien” political activity was upheld on the basis of Article 16. It’s undoubtedly the case though that member states specifically monitor the political activity of non-citizens and may have regard to it in, for example, the processing of naturalisation applications. Germany for one has a law that bars citizenship for members of parties that are “aimed at subverting the free democratic constitutional system”; this was used to deny citizenship a few years ago to an elected member of Die Linke. The applicant was an EU national so under the Piermont decision Article 16 wouldn’t have applied anyway, but you could certainly envisage a scenario where a non-EU national challenged the law and Germany defended it on the basis of Article 16.
There’s very little in the ECHR’s travaux about it - it seems to have just been taken for granted at the time that states had the power to restrict political activity by non-citizens. Nowadays I assume states probably would not want to give up the ability to fall back on Article 16, where all else failed, as a (purported) “anti-terrorism” measure.