 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009including
a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away your American citizenship. b) Nothing other people, including your parents, do can take away your American citizenship. c) ?? Which is best.  SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away > your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Brooklyn, NY 12 years > Baltimore 26 years As it is best to have the commentary part close to what it is commenting on, the second is better than the first. In message <fccac680-aaa9-43f5-89b8-8110332dab42@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Cece <ceceliaarmstrong@yahoo.com> writes >> a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >> your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >As it is best to have the commentary part close to what it is >commenting on, the second is better than the first. Although some may disapprove, I would use brackets. "Nothing other people (including your parents) do can take away your American citizenship." SignatureIan > In message > <fccac680-aaa9-43f5-89b8-8110332dab42@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Cece [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Although some may disapprove, I would use brackets. "Nothing other people > (including your parents) do can take away your American citizenship." "Including your parents, nothing other people do can take away your American citizenship." One less comma, no brackets. [ ... ] > "Including your parents, nothing other people do can take away your American > citizenship." > > One less comma, no brackets. Terrible dangler, however.[1] [1] I have no objection to danglers, per se, but this one clanks. And shouldn't that be "One comma less ..."? SignatureBob Lieblich Or "clunks" -- your choice >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >And shouldn't that be "One comma less ..."? Are brackets really a 'no-no' in educated writing? If so, what about hyphens? "Nothing other people - including your parents - do can take away your American citizenship." Yes, that's better than brackets. (Isn't it?) SignatureIan > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And shouldn't that be "One comma less ..."? actually "one comma fewer..." Less - amount few - number >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Terrible dangler, however.[1] Thanks. I'm having trouble reconciling myself to this problem of dangling modifiers, but I'll continue to give it some attention. "Dangling modifiers usually introduce sentences, contain a verb form, but do not name a subject." "A dangling modifier is a phrase or clause that is not clearly attached to any word in the sentence" That's a beginning. >> [1] I have no objection to danglers, per se, but this one clanks. >> And shouldn't that be "One comma less ..."? >> > actually "one comma fewer..." Less - amount[;] few - number Which was a subject in a recent posting. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And shouldn't that be "One comma less ..."? As YAAL (whereas IANAL), what about the legal aspect? Is it true? Does "other people" include federal judges? Signatureathel >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >As YAAL (whereas IANAL), what about the legal aspect? Is it true? Does >"other people" include federal judges? For naturalized citizens, it's not true, although it is unusual and afaik usually results from their lying on their immigration papers. Or maybe committing a large number of crimes. But as to born-citizens, it's true. Nothing anyone else can do, and nothing a child can do when he is still a minor (I think that is under 18), can cost one his American citizenship. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > nothing a child can do when he is still a minor (I think that is under > 18), can cost one his American citizenship. Rescinding American Citizenship A United States citizen may, under certain circumstances, be stripped of heror his citizenship. A leading case on the loss of citizenship is Trop v. Dulles (1958). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the loss ofcitizenship for desertion--without allegiance to a foreign power by the deserter--was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment to the Constitution and beyond the war powers of Congress. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), the High Court held that a person who leaves the country during time of war to avoid military service may be deprived of his citizenship, but not without a hearing. There are many actions that can lead to the loss of citizenship. These include obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, entering into the armed forcesof another state, accepting employment in the government of another state, formally renouncing one's United States nationality before a diplomat or consular officer in a foreign state, committing treason against the United States,and attempting to overthrow or bear arms against the United States. law.jrank.org/pages/12990/Trop-v-Dulles.html > Rescinding American Citizenship > A United States citizen may, under certain circumstances, be stripped of > heror his citizenship. [... ] > There are many actions that can lead to the loss of citizenship. These > include obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, entering into the armed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > United States,and attempting to overthrow or bear arms against the United > States. Quite so. The immediate question was whether the following sentence, originally submitted with a usage question, was factually correct: "Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away your American citizenship." The truth or falsity of the sentence depends on what you mean by "take away." In the sense that some voluntary act on the part of the citizen is the trigger, only the citizen can "take away" his citizenship. But the procedures for deprivation of American citizenship require action by at least one judge or other government official. The truth or falsity of the sentence depends on your choice for the meaning of the phrase. SignatureBob Lieblich >>>> [ ... ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> nothing a child can do when he is still a minor (I think that is under >> 18), can cost one his American citizenship. At first I didn't notice that you weren't contradicting me. But you're not (Alas, contradictions are so common in Usenet, I assumed this was another one.) All the things you list helow are things a person does himself. But unfortunately I must still perhaps contradict you, depending on what you meant. :) >Rescinding American Citizenship >A United States citizen may, under certain circumstances, be stripped of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >deserter--was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment to the >Constitution and beyond the war powers of Congress. So that's an example where sone can't lose citicizenship. > In Kennedy v. >Mendoza-Martinez (1963), the High Court held that a person who leaves the >country during time of war to avoid military service may be deprived of his >citizenship, but not without a hearing. That was a long time ago, and related to Viet Nam fervor. I'm almost sure it's been overruled, for native-born. At any rate, most of its applicability is moot at the moment because there is no draft. >There are many actions that can lead to the loss of citizenship. These I wrote most of my answer before I noticed that this sentence doesn't especially refer to native-born citizens. I wouldn't be very surprised if all the actions he lists can affect the citizenship of naturalized Americans, those who weren't citizens at birth. But except for one action, only natuarized citizens. I think it's fair to say he gives the impression it is all citizens. I am leaving the rest of my post the way I wrote it when I thought the paragraph referred to native-born citizens. >include obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, entering into the armed >forcesof another state, I am absolutley certain that entering into the armed forces of another state is not grounds to lose one's USA citizenship, from a case decision in the 70's probably. Serving in the army does not necessary require a pledge of allegiance to that country. (I suspect the French Foreign Legion was like that) At that time the court imposed the condition that the person must actively pledge allegiegiance to some other country. This would fulfill the option you listed first, naturalization in a foreign state. But I am sure a later law or court decision undid that too. > accepting employment in the government of another >state, Nope. > formally renouncing one's United States nationality before a diplomat >or consular officer in a foreign state, AFAIK, this is the only way one a native-born can lose his citizenship. Perhaps renouncing it somewhere else would be adequate too if there were proof the person had really done so. I don't know if that has been adjudicated. > committing treason against the >United States,and attempting to overthrow or bear arms against the United >States. This is treason but it's not grounds for a native-born** citizen to lose his citizenhship. **I'm not saying natural born, which is an unusual phrase that it seems only is used to decide who can become President. >law.jrank.org/pages/12990/Trop-v-Dulles.html SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >"Including your parents, nothing other people do can take away your American >citizenship." Wait, you mean someone's doing my parents? ¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr You are already too educated stupid to understand the truth of nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-liter wine cube >>"Including your parents, nothing other people do can take away your >>American >>citizenship." > > Wait, you mean someone's doing my parents? How about this substitution: "Nothing [your parents] do can take away your American citizehship." Am I still in error? > >>"Including your parents, nothing other people do can take away your > >>American [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Am I still in error? More so than before, assuming that's the entirety of your sentence. Don't get fancy. "Nothing anyone, even your parents, can do will deprive you of your American citizenship." The sentence remains ambiguous and probably false to fact, but at least it says what it's supposed to say. SignatureBob Lieblich IAAL (and beginning to regret it) > In message > <fccac680-aaa9-43f5-89b8-8110332dab42@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > people (including your parents) do can take away your American > citizenship." I choose option c): "Nothing done by other people, even[1] your parents, can take away your American citizenship."the authorities to revoke it. [1] Much better than "including." SignatureBob Lieblich American citizen >> a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >> your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >As it is best to have the commentary part close to what it is >commenting on, the second is better than the first. To everyone: The problem I have with b is that it leaves "do" sort of floating out there. Without "including your parents", or with it moved, I don't have that feeling. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>> a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >>> your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > floating out there. Without "including your parents", or with it > moved, I don't have that feeling. In speech the second is more likely to be heard, but in writing, one sees an awkwardness in the placement. In "b" I want to put another comma after "do", with no explanation other than a pause. I agree with Glenn that the better placement is to put the verb as close to the object as possible. Thus, "a" is better. > a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away > your American citizenship. > b) Nothing other people, including your parents, do can take away > your American citizenship. I'd say either one is fine and the second flows better. Putting the verb within reach of its object seems more important to me than putting the adjective phrase right next to the subject. ¬R >> a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >> your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >verb within reach of its object seems more important to me than putting >the adjective phrase right next to the subject. I'm confused. So which one do you like? You say the second but seem to describe the first. >¬R SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >I'm confused. No, I was. "Nothing" isn't the object of "do," is it? It's modified by the adjective clause "other people do," whose object is absent. In fact, if this were a noun clause as I was thinking, my preference might be just the opposite: What other people, including your parents, do cannot take away etc. In that case, the relation between "do" and "what" is clear and doesn't need to be emphasized by proximity. So I see the same problem as you do, and you described it more accurately: without an object to relate to, "do" is left in awkward limbo by being separated from its subject. ¬R Around here, the fun is always filled with blanks. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html --Theresa Willis >a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >your American citizenship. > >b) Nothing other people, including your parents, do can take away >your American citizenship. BTW, this came up because of the last lawsuit trying to stop Barack Obama from becoming President. Dismissed in January for lack of standing by the plaintiff**, one suit didn't dispute that he was born in Hawaii but claimed that when his mother took him to Indonesia at age 6, or when she kept him there four years. he lost his citizenship. Such nonsense. I doubt that could have ever been true in this country. **I'm sort of sorry it worked out that way, becuase I would have like to have seen the SC shoot it down. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >>your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Such nonsense. I doubt that could have ever been true in this > country. I can recall an instance while I was stationed in Japan in the mid-1950s when it was reported that a woman born in the United States was to lose her citizenship unless she returned to the United States before she reached the age of 21 (Or was it 18?). She had been repatriated to Japan with her parents soon after 7 December 1941. This appears to disprove any version of the statement. I recall another instance about the same time where a retired U S Army Sergeant had joined the Australian Army. It was reported that by doing so he had forfeited his retirement retainer pay and citizenship. It is probably apocryphal, but it was accepted as fact during my first enlistment in the USAF (1948-1951) that citizenship was lost upon receiving a Dishonorable Discharge. Such were termed "yellow discharges" because the "Enlistment Record and Report of Separation, Dishonorable Discharge" was printed on yellow paper. >>>a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >>>your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >parents soon after 7 December 1941. This appears to disprove any version of >the statement. Well you may well be right and my doubt was misplaced and they once did do this, but not anymore. Your story is from the 50's and there were significant court decisions inthe 70's. >I recall another instance about the same time where a retired U S Army >Sergeant had joined the Australian Army. It was reported that by doing so he >had forfeited his retirement retainer pay and citizenship. I know that that was the law prior to a court decision in the 70's. >It is probably apocryphal, but it was accepted as fact during my first >enlistment in the USAF (1948-1951) that citizenship was lost upon receiving >a Dishonorable Discharge. Such were termed "yellow discharges" because the >"Enlistment Record and Report of Separation, Dishonorable Discharge" was >printed on yellow paper. I agree. I doubt that was true. It reminds me of some other situation where the penalty was much exaggerated to discourage the act. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > >>>a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away > >>>your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - A dishonorable discharge may cause loss of some rights, but not loss of citizenship. http://books.google.com/books?id=UVgSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=citizenship+ %22dishonorable+discharge%22&source=bl&ots=lRbFZiP0FP&sig=_0QwV6n2niOD9s4hf-mSaX r0cV8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result was written in 1916. Hm. The Immigration and Nationalry Act of 1940 said that conviction for wartime desertion and a dishonorable discharge removed citizenship; but the Supreme Court overturned that in 1956. There are ways to lose American citizenship: http://law.jrank.org/pages/12990/Trop-v-Dulles.html On the girl repatriated with her parents, can you supply enough info for Google to have a chance of finding this? It couldn't be Mariko Terasaki; she was born in Shanghai, and was probably not considered an American citizen at all. I don't know when a married woman's citizenship stopped being the same as her husband's. >>>>a) Nothing other people do, including your parents, can take away >>>>your American citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I agree. I doubt that was true. It reminds me of some other situation > where the penalty was much exaggerated to discourage the act. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html is the most current explanation of present US policy on the topic of loss of citizenship that I could find. For a native-born US citizen, renouncing his US citizenship must be an overt act, and the presumption is that the individual does not intend to renounce his US citizenship: A (natural-born Ametrican citizen) who ..."is naturalized in a foreign country, takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state; serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government, and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since *such an intent will be presumed*. " If an action such as those listed above comes to a consular officer, attention, the applicant is asked if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the person retains U.S. citizenship. Even the American Taliban, John Phillip Walker Lindh, did not lost his American citizenship, although he was sentenced to twenty years in prison. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.