Tweet
Re: US Passport Proof Of Allegiance ?
Not very often these days I agree with the good Dr. but I have to agree with him here, it’s a constitutional issue, whether we like it or not, ignorance of the law is no excuse, the Constitution is what Governs civil society, it’s the law of the land and we cannot change the laws of our Country to satisfy a few or use it conveniently, and been the holder of a political Office should not be use to circumvent it either.
I know nothing about laws and maybe putting my foot in my mouth here,so I speak only from a layman’s point of view, but it seems to me to be a good law and it should hold up in court.
We don’t like it, then lets got to Constitutional reform and change it, but as long as it is on the books, we MUST obey it
There is no doubt the PNP are sore losers, and if they had won it would be business as usual. Now what does that say about the people who we elect to govern us? … What should we expect from the little man in the street? What can we say when they broke the laws? What do we have two, sets of laws, in the Country?
Even if Darrel himself did not swear elegance to the USA, his mother is said to have done it on his behalf, so what the difference? The questionI ask myself is had his mother decline to swear on his behalf would he be granted US citizenship? From a layman point of view I say no.
So again from a layman point of view no matter by what virtue he is a US Citizen and he is traveling as such, as was testified to by the immigration Officer. As it stands today if Darrel did not seek extension to his two weeks stay in the Country he is now there illegally.
Now that’s a dam shame the man is a Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister and if we further believe the testimony of the Immigration Officer, he is also working without a permit. Walker the said thing.
Nuff said…….
Not very often these days I agree with the good Dr. but I have to agree with him here, it’s a constitutional issue, whether we like it or not, ignorance of the law is no excuse, the Constitution is what Governs civil society, it’s the law of the land and we cannot change the laws of our Country to satisfy a few or use it conveniently, and been the holder of a political Office should not be use to circumvent it either.
I know nothing about laws and maybe putting my foot in my mouth here,so I speak only from a layman’s point of view, but it seems to me to be a good law and it should hold up in court.
We don’t like it, then lets got to Constitutional reform and change it, but as long as it is on the books, we MUST obey it
There is no doubt the PNP are sore losers, and if they had won it would be business as usual. Now what does that say about the people who we elect to govern us? … What should we expect from the little man in the street? What can we say when they broke the laws? What do we have two, sets of laws, in the Country?
Even if Darrel himself did not swear elegance to the USA, his mother is said to have done it on his behalf, so what the difference? The questionI ask myself is had his mother decline to swear on his behalf would he be granted US citizenship? From a layman point of view I say no.
So again from a layman point of view no matter by what virtue he is a US Citizen and he is traveling as such, as was testified to by the immigration Officer. As it stands today if Darrel did not seek extension to his two weeks stay in the Country he is now there illegally.
Now that’s a dam shame the man is a Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister and if we further believe the testimony of the Immigration Officer, he is also working without a permit. Walker the said thing.
Nuff said…….
Comment