On Feb 19, 10:22 pm, "RHF" wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:01 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:



"dxAce" wrote in message

...

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
groups.com...

We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you

his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

and
now the citizenship of his daughter

She is a born dual national, who never exercised her rights to American
citizenship. Not exercising a right is not the same as not having it.

Then why were you insisting that she had dual citizenship?

By US law, and even by the information posted by a knowledgeable poster this
morning, she does. She chose, however, not to use it Under the laws of her
country, she is only Ecuadorian; apparently the US system sees it
differently.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DE,

Q # 1. First - Was her Mother also an American ?
- - - Usually -if- noth Parents are Native Born Americans
{Physically Born in the USA} - You Are An "America-by-Birth-Right".

That's true as long as at least one of the parents has resided in the
US at some time in their lives.

When only one parent is a US citizen, then the requirements for
passing citizenship to the child vary depending on whether the parents
were married at the time of the birth, as well as how much physical
presence the US citizen parent had, in the US, prior to the birth.
The required amount of physical presence has changed over the years.

It should be noted that IF the requirements for citizenship are met,
then the child is automatically a US citizen from birth. It's not an
option that they can choose to take if they wish.

Q # 2. Or - Was her Mother 'other-than' an American ?
Q # 2a Is she now over the Age of 21 Years ?
IIRC -if- she 'never' exercised the Privilege-of-America-Citizenship
before or upon turning the Age of 21 years - - - She may have 'lost'
that "Privilege" {Option}.

There is no requirement to exercise US citizenship by the age of 21 in
order to keep it. There was, prior to 1978, a requirement for a US
citizen born abroad of US parentage to move to the US and live there
for at least five years by age 28, in order to preserve their US
citizenship. But that law was repealed in 1978. It wouldn't have
affected anyone who didn't reach their 28th birthday by then.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you

his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

and
now the citizenship of his daughter

She is a born dual national, who never exercised her rights to American
citizenship. Not exercising a right is not the same as not having it.

Then why were you insisting that she had dual citizenship?

By US law, and even by the information posted by a knowledgeable poster this
morning, she does. She chose, however, not to use it Under the laws of her
country, she is only Ecuadorian; apparently the US system sees it
differently.

As do you, a known pathological liar.

Run along, boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 19, 10:22 pm, "RHF" wrote:


It should be noted that IF the requirements for citizenship are met,
then the child is automatically a US citizen from birth. It's not an
option that they can choose to take if they wish.

It is, in Ecuador. Or, at least, questionable. In the 70's and 80's, upon
becoming a citizen at 18, the age of majority, any "dual national" (a
concept not then recognized there) had to sign an act by which they
renounced any other allegiances. Given that "swearing an oath" to another
naiton or "renouncing" U.S. citizenship were even prohibited in the
introduction to each US passport at the time, there is weven a grey area in
US law (it is still, in modified form, parts 2 and 4 of "Loss of
Citizenship" in my 1997 passport).

As mentioned, many Latin American countries consider children to age 18 to
be nationals but not citizens. Citizenship is generally conferred at the age
of majority, usually 18.

Q # 2. Or - Was her Mother 'other-than' an American ?
Q # 2a Is she now over the Age of 21 Years ?
IIRC -if- she 'never' exercised the Privilege-of-America-Citizenship
before or upon turning the Age of 21 years - - - She may have 'lost'
that "Privilege" {Option}.

There is no requirement to exercise US citizenship by the age of 21 in
order to keep it.

The age of majority in Ecuador is 18, and to become a citizen (which one is
not up to 18, no matter who the parents are) one had to renounce all other
allegiances, as I said above. Such constitutes both an oath to Ecuador and a
renunciation of other citizenships...

While US law may be more tolerant, Ecuadorian law at the time was not. Thus,
we have a dichotomy: The US may consider the person a citizen and a dual
national , while Ecuador does not. This may be an example of how one nation
allows dual nationals and another does not... for the same person!

There was, prior to 1978, a requirement for a US
citizen born abroad of US parentage to move to the US and live there
for at least five years by age 28, in order to preserve their US
citizenship. But that law was repealed in 1978. It wouldn't have
affected anyone who didn't reach their 28th birthday by then.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you

his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

and
now the citizenship of his daughter

She is a born dual national, who never exercised her rights to
American
citizenship. Not exercising a right is not the same as not having it.

Then why were you insisting that she had dual citizenship?

By US law, and even by the information posted by a knowledgeable poster
this
morning, she does. She chose, however, not to use it Under the laws of
her
country, she is only Ecuadorian; apparently the US system sees it
differently.

As do you, a known pathological liar.

Please see Mr. Gallagher's very informative posts in regards to US
immigration law on dual nationals born abroad of one US parent. I defer to
him on the US law part of the discussion, as he obviously knows more than
you or I do.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 19, 9:10 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you


Lies apparently aren't confusing to you, either.

Again, a mistake by an industry association in a convention program is
hardly an issue


his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

Not on my part, but then I don't go around calling myself Eduardo.

As mentioned, it was my baptismal name... given to me by my godparents on
that occasion.

Wait! Didn't you say in the past that it was given to you by your Mother at your
baptism?

At any rate, here is a quote from August 20, 2006 in alt.politics.immigration:

"Funny, because I was baptized in 1947 and "Eduardo" is a name my mother
liked from the time she lived in Europe."

I guess your godparents liked it too. Myself, I would have baptized you
'Stupido'.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

Again, a mistake by an industry association in a convention program is
hardly an issue

Their only mistake was taking you at your word.

Very funny. They simply misprinted my title in a program. When a convention
has 10,000 attendees and about 300 different speakers and panelists, many
errors happen. Nobody int he industry gave it a second thought.


As mentioned, it was my baptismal name... given to me by my godparents on
that occasion.

I suppose they also named you "President"?

And your point is? You don't like the name? Tough.



She is a born dual national, who never exercised her rights to
American
citizenship. Not exercising a right is not the same as not having it.

But above you say she was never an American citizen. Better get your
story straight.

It is perfectly straight. She was born a US citizen, under US law. Under
Ecuadorian law, she was not a citizen until age 18 (many Latin American
nations do not consider people citizens until they reach the age of
majority... including Mexico, I believe). At age 18, she got an Ecuadorian
passport, sufficient in ecuador to be considereed ONLY an Ecuadorian
national. US law saw her as a dual national.


So far, no lie exists. I stated my elder daughter was born a dual
national
(she was Ecuadorian at birth is a true statement. She was American at
birth
was a true statement) and chose, later, which nation she would carry a
passport from. Seems simple to me.


"David Eduardo: ...She has never been a US citizen. "

Correct. She had a right to citizenship, but lived in Ecuador where she did
not exercise it. She swore citizenship to Ecuador at age 18; one country
considers here only a national, and the other considers her a dual
national. In other words, there are two answers to this question, depending
on whose laws you folow.

Spin machine working overtime once again, Edweenie?

LMFAO at the pathological liar.

David Frackelton Gleason, retard boy at Univision, and posing daily as 'Eduardo'
damn near spun himself into the ground when he wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you

his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

and
now the citizenship of his daughter

She is a born dual national, who never exercised her rights to
American
citizenship. Not exercising a right is not the same as not having it.

Then why were you insisting that she had dual citizenship?

By US law, and even by the information posted by a knowledgeable poster
this
morning, she does. She chose, however, not to use it Under the laws of
her
country, she is only Ecuadorian; apparently the US system sees it
differently.

As do you, a known pathological liar.

Please see Mr. Gallagher's very informative posts in regards to US
immigration law on dual nationals born abroad of one US parent. I defer to
him on the US law part of the discussion, as he obviously knows more than
you or I do.

We're not talking about US law, boy. We're talking about you being a
pathological liar. Stop the obfuscation.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 19, 9:10 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you


Lies apparently aren't confusing to you, either.

Again, a mistake by an industry association in a convention program is
hardly an issue


his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

Not on my part, but then I don't go around calling myself Eduardo.

As mentioned, it was my baptismal name... given to me by my godparents on
that occasion.

Wait! Didn't you say in the past that it was given to you by your Mother
at your
baptism?

Correct. My mother selected the name, and the godparents "gave it" at the
ceremony... as in "they gave the response" That's the way it is done. The
priest asks the godparents, "and what name have you selected..." and the
godparents respond. The person who decided on the name can be the parents,
or the whole family, I suppose. In my case, it was my mother... who used a
name she liked from when she lived in Europe whjich was, as required, also
the name of a saint.

At any rate, here is a quote from August 20, 2006 in
alt.politics.immigration:

"Funny, because I was baptized in 1947 and "Eduardo" is a name my mother
liked from the time she lived in Europe."

I guess your godparents liked it too. Myself, I would have baptized you
'Stupido'.

You don't understand the baptism ceremony, obviously. When my daughters were
baptized, a saint's name was added to the first given name... such as
Jennifer Anne Altieri Gleason, and so on. In this case, the parents decided,
and the grandparents answered the responsorial question as was the custom.

The fact that the godparents give a response does not mean they made the
decision, although they could have been given the honor if the family had
wanted.

You make an issue out of the simplest things.

On Feb 20, 12:09?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Feb 19, 9:10 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

groups.com...

We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you

Lies apparently aren't confusing to you, either.

Again, a mistake by an industry association in a convention program is
hardly an issue

his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

Not on my part, but then I don't go around calling myself Eduardo.

As mentioned, it was my baptismal name... given to me by my godparents on
that occasion.

Wait! Didn't you say in the past that it was given to you by your Mother
at your
baptism?

Correct. My mother selected the name, and the godparents "gave it" at the
ceremony... as in "they gave the response" That's the way it is done. The
priest asks the godparents, "and what name have you selected..." and the
godparents respond. The person who decided on the name can be the parents,
or the whole family, I suppose. In my case, it was my mother... who used a
name she liked from when she lived in Europe whjich was, as required, also
the name of a saint.



At any rate, here is a quote from August 20, 2006 in
alt.politics.immigration:

"Funny, because I was baptized in 1947 and "Eduardo" is a name my mother
liked from the time she lived in Europe."

I guess your godparents liked it too. Myself, I would have baptized you
'Stupido'.

You don't understand the baptism ceremony, obviously. When my daughters were
baptized, a saint's name was added to the first given name... such as
Jennifer Anne Altieri Gleason, and so on. In this case, the parents decided,
and the grandparents answered the responsorial question as was the custom.

The fact that the godparents give a response does not mean they made the
decision, although they could have been given the honor if the family had
wanted.

You make an issue out of the simplest things.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How stupid are you ? You post all this personal information on the
Internet, then provide a link to your Web site:

http://davidgleason.com/

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 19, 9:10 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



We've seen him confused now about his own job title,

A typo is not confusing to me. Apparently it is to you


Lies apparently aren't confusing to you, either.

Again, a mistake by an industry association in a convention program is
hardly an issue


his ethnicity

Ethnically, I am Irish and Celt. There is no confusion there.

Not on my part, but then I don't go around calling myself Eduardo.

As mentioned, it was my baptismal name... given to me by my godparents on
that occasion.

Wait! Didn't you say in the past that it was given to you by your Mother
at your
baptism?

Correct. My mother selected the name, and the godparents "gave it" at the
ceremony... as in "they gave the response" That's the way it is done. The
priest asks the godparents, "and what name have you selected..." and the
godparents respond. The person who decided on the name can be the parents,
or the whole family, I suppose. In my case, it was my mother... who used a
name she liked from when she lived in Europe whjich was, as required, also
the name of a saint.

At any rate, here is a quote from August 20, 2006 in
alt.politics.immigration:

"Funny, because I was baptized in 1947 and "Eduardo" is a name my mother
liked from the time she lived in Europe."

I guess your godparents liked it too. Myself, I would have baptized you
'Stupido'.

You don't understand the baptism ceremony, obviously. When my daughters were
baptized, a saint's name was added to the first given name... such as
Jennifer Anne Altieri Gleason, and so on. In this case, the parents decided,
and the grandparents answered the responsorial question as was the custom.

The fact that the godparents give a response does not mean they made the
decision, although they could have been given the honor if the family had
wanted.

You make an issue out of the simplest things.

Yes, because in your case it's merely fabrication!

Keep spinning, boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA