Renouncing titles on becoming a US citizen

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
08 October 2010 00:19
 

Joseph McMillan;69624 wrote:

(I say "arguably."  The counter-argument that the abolition of nobility in Egypt following the revolution means that Hassan is not now "of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state.")


At the risk of getting the group mired in another debate on the topic, can Hassan or any other person claiming untitled nobility actually renounce it?  AFAIK, untitled nobility is the basic condition of nobility (i.e., being of noble blood or having a noble pedigree).  Can a pedigree be legally renounced other than through adoption?  I am of course ignoring titles of nobility and orders of chivalry, all of which can be renounced.

 

Assuming that a foreigner of untitled noble status wishes to naturalize as a US citizen, will his renunciation have anything more than a symbolic effect?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 October 2010 09:54
 

eploy;79640 wrote:

At the risk of getting the group mired in another debate on the topic, can Hassan or any other person claiming untitled nobility actually renounce it? AFAIK, untitled nobility is the basic condition of nobility (i.e., being of noble blood or having a noble pedigree). Can a pedigree be legally renounced other than through adoption? I am of course ignoring titles of nobility and orders of chivalry, all of which can be renounced.

Assuming that a foreigner of untitled noble status wishes to naturalize as a US citizen, will his renunciation have anything more than a symbolic effect?


I would say yes, this is possible.  Nobility, in a country that recognizes it, is not just pedigree—it’s a legal status.  The privileges that go with that status are largely attenuated in the modern world, but they were once quite real and, in some places, still are.  This is why Francois Velde and others argue—cogently in my opinion—that the equation of the English and Scottish gentry with untitled nobility is invalid.  What the U.S. naturalization law requires is that a new American citizen renounce this status and whatever privileges go with it.

 

The argument that this amounts to renouncing one’s heritage is a canard.  Of course this renunciation doesn’t make your grandfather no longer your grandfather; it doesn’t change history.  A naturalized citizen can still say,"my ancestors were…" or "my cousins are…" or "if my grandfather hadn’t come to America I would be…"  He just can’t say in good conscience "I am ... "

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
08 October 2010 10:11
 

eploy;79640 wrote:

At the risk of getting the group mired in another debate on the topic, can Hassan or any other person claiming untitled nobility actually renounce it?  AFAIK, untitled nobility is the basic condition of nobility (i.e., being of noble blood or having a noble pedigree).  Can a pedigree be legally renounced other than through adoption?  I am of course ignoring titles of nobility and orders of chivalry, all of which can be renounced.

The US Government thinks so. That’s why it mandates the renunciation of "orders of nobility" for potential US Citizens. The relevant foreign country may agree that the renunciation is valid, but it may not.

If I was King of the Universe I’d make everyone refer to the specific terms of the original grant. In Hassan’s case it was apparently to "all descendants" of one of his ancestors. As Hassan cannot renounce being a descendant of that ancestor, I would argue his renunciation will be meaningless.

 

Back in the real world I am not King of the Universe. The US Government thinks his renunciation will be perfectly valid, and Hassan himself has stopped claiming the titles and trappings of nobility.
eploy;79640 wrote:

Assuming that a foreigner of untitled noble status wishes to naturalize as a US citizen, will his renunciation have anything more than a symbolic effect?

Did his being a noble in the first place ever have anything more than a symbolic effect?

Unless you’re a British Life Peer, or a member of a ruling dynasty, noble status doesn’t give you much actual power these days.

 

Nick

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 October 2010 15:54
 

Aquilo;79647 wrote:

Thank you Hassan,

of course guns and arms in the US must be registered !:D


Ummm, actually that depends on where you live.  I suspect that a majority of Americans live in places that don’t require registration of firearms.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
08 October 2010 21:51
 

Joseph McMillan;79643 wrote:

A naturalized citizen can still say,"my ancestors were…" or "my cousins are…" or "if my grandfather hadn’t come to America I would be…"  He just can’t say in good conscience "I am ... "


Well put, but luckily (depending on your viewpoint) the child of the naturalized citizen is under no such obligation.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
09 October 2010 10:56
 

Joseph McMillan;79650 wrote:

Ummm, actually that depends on where you live.  I suspect that a majority of Americans live in places that don’t require registration of firearms.


One of the beauties of freedom

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 October 2010 12:16
 

Joseph McMillan:

A naturalized citizen can still say,"my ancestors were…" or "my cousins are…" or "if my grandfather hadn’t come to America I would be…" He just can’t say in good conscience "I am ... "

Eploy:

Well put, but luckily (depending on your viewpoint) the child of the naturalized citizen is under no such obligation.

 

Me:  Viewpoints will of course vary; but IMO the (grand)child of a naturalized citizen whose actions reject the conditions of naturalization accepted by his/her naturalized (grand)parent, has de facto if not de jure rejected that citizenship.  If the (grand)child chooses to give up allegiance to his/her country of birth and return to the allegiance of the (grand)parent’s country of origin —and providing they want him back!—he/she is of course free to accept whatever that country’s laws and customs may allow; but to attempt to stand with a foot in both places effectively makes him a full citizen of neither—morally if not legally.

 

I’m reminded of Lyon Innes of Learney’s writing about hyphenated surnames—(paraphrased) trying to represent both families but ending up representing neither; but that only echoes, however unknowingly, Theodore Roosevelt’s (also paraphrased) principle that a hyphenated American is no American.  One can be a friend of, and treasure / admire the history and customs of, whatever nation(s) one chooses—ubi libertas ibi patria & all; but one can truely be "of" only one unhyphenated nation and one undivided allegiance at any one time.

 

My views of course, others may in good faith feel differently and still be decent, honest folk however self-deluded smile

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 October 2010 12:54
 

At a less elevated plane that that addressed by Mike McC., I wonder how one would reconcile the "you can’t renounce your heritage" principle with an attempt to renounce the actions of one’s parents or grandparents in renouncing their nobility.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
10 October 2010 02:10
 

kimon;79655 wrote:

One of the beauties of freedom


amen.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
10 October 2010 02:20
 

Michael F. McCartney;79656 wrote:

Joseph McMillan:

A naturalized citizen can still say,"my ancestors were…" or "my cousins are…" or "if my grandfather hadn’t come to America I would be…" He just can’t say in good conscience "I am ... "

Eploy:

Well put, but luckily (depending on your viewpoint) the child of the naturalized citizen is under no such obligation.

 

Me:  Viewpoints will of course vary; but IMO the (grand)child of a naturalized citizen whose actions reject the conditions of naturalization accepted by his/her naturalized (grand)parent, has de facto if not de jure rejected that citizenship.  If the (grand)child chooses to give up allegiance to his/her country of birth and return to the allegiance of the (grand)parent’s country of origin —and providing they want him back!—he/she is of course free to accept whatever that country’s laws and customs may allow; but to attempt to stand with a foot in both places effectively makes him a full citizen of neither—morally if not legally.

 

I’m reminded of Lyon Innes of Learney’s writing about hyphenated surnames—(paraphrased) trying to represent both families but ending up representing neither; but that only echoes, however unknowingly, Theodore Roosevelt’s (also paraphrased) principle that a hyphenated American is no American.  One can be a friend of, and treasure / admire the history and customs of, whatever nation(s) one chooses—ubi libertas ibi patria & all; but one can truely be "of" only one unhyphenated nation and one undivided allegiance at any one time.

 

My views of course, others may in good faith feel differently and still be decent, honest folk however self-deluded smile

 

sorry for the hijack.

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
10 October 2010 04:49
 

@ Mr Joseph Mc Millan

When I wrote ‘of course guns and arms in the US must be registered !’  I expressed my genuine wish that this should happen pretty soon smile

Me, myself I enjoy shooting but I believe that tighter guns control in all states wouldn’t jeopardize`US citizen’s right to possess and carry arms. Like in heraldry - nowadays anybody , everybody can have its coat of arms designed and use it as he pleases but maybe registration would bring to the end unlawful use of usurped ones.Does the company using its trademark logo has more rights than individuals ,than descendants of noble families who like Mr Dennis said fought and bled to death for America ?? I doubt ...

The beauty of freedom lies in ordered use of it , not in chaos ...

@ Mr Michael McCartney -

I believe that a surname is a part of our inherited tradition ...like a code carrying a message about who we are ...so hyphenated or not must be respected without any reserves.The legal situation in each personal case can vary but morally people are just what they are - the product of learned and accepted rules , believes and traditions . It’s foolish to ask someone to renounce this heritage.

For the record ,my hyphenated surname is a blend of two distant cultures - it respects my Polish-Lithuanian roots and my husband’s Egyptian -Turkish- Georgian and possibly Persian ancestry .

 

Anna Borewicz-Khorshed

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 October 2010 09:01
 

Donnchadh;79664 wrote:

talk like that you mentioned from better men then i, simply smells too much of Nativism, or, Know Nothingism, and my memory IS too long and intact to ever accept that tripe as gospel. but, that’s me.


I think you misinterpet President Roosevelt’s meaning.  This is the president who, according to legend, opened his speech to the Daughters of the American Revolution with the words, "Fellow immigrants…"

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
10 October 2010 09:24
 

Aquilo;79666 wrote:

@ Mr Joseph Mc Millan

When I wrote ‘of course guns and arms in the US must be registered !’  I expressed my genuine wish that this should happen pretty soon smile

Me, myself I enjoy shooting but I believe that tighter guns control in all states wouldn’t jeopardize`US citizen’s right to possess and carry arms. Like in heraldry - nowadays anybody , everybody can have its coat of arms designed and use it as he pleases but maybe registration would bring to the end unlawful use of usurped ones.Does the company using its trademark logo has more rights than individuals ,than descendants of noble families who like Mr Dennis said fought and bled to death for America ?? I doubt ...

The beauty of freedom lies in ordered use of it , not in chaos ...

Please let’s keep politics out of this forum.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
10 October 2010 16:03
 

kimon;79655 wrote:

One of the beauties of freedom

kimon;79670 wrote:

Please let’s keep politics out of this forum.


Indeed. wink

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 October 2010 16:44
 

Aquilo;79666 wrote:

Like in heraldry - nowadays anybody , everybody can have its coat of arms designed and use it as he pleases but maybe registration would bring to the end unlawful use of usurped ones.


The number of countries where there is serious protection of personal arms can be counted on the fingers of one hand, which calls into question the characterization of usurpation as "unlawful."  Wrong, certainly, but unlawful?


Quote:

Does the company using its trademark logo has more rights than individuals ,


A person using his arms as a trademark has the same protection as the company using a trademark.  But it doesn’t do much if anything for non-commercial use of either kind of mark.  See our page on registration of arms on the AHS website.


Quote:

than descendants of noble families who like Mr Dennis said fought and bled to death for America ??


I really don’t know who these people are supposed to be, but since no one expects the descendants of a noble family to give up their arms along with their noble status, I don’t see how their position in the United States is any different from anyone else’s.  Which is pretty much the point.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
10 October 2010 21:44
 

Donnchadh;79664 wrote:

we’ve simply always viewed ourselves as Irish-Americans. not because we have a loyalty to the land of our ancestors. not because we have a long memory at the injustices shown us when we got here (which all good Irishmen do…it is a curse to have such long memories imo). not because we feel we are better than anyone else. none of that is why we say that. it is simply that we are Irish-Americans…that is Americans of Irish origin. we are not Americans of American origin as we are not of the native peoples who were here before us. .....i suspect it’s the same with other ethnicities in this great nation, but i don’t know.

......simply smells too much of Nativism, or, Know Nothingism…. but, that’s me. :(