Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[Redfish]

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

For now it is. the exact same thing could happen here. thats my only point. The legality discussion is moot.

 

[bripat9643]

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

 

[Redfish]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

If the country broke up, each person could choose to become part of the new country or stay with the old one. Those decisions might necessitate a move. Keeping or revoking US citizenship would be an individual choice of each person.

 

[Skylar]

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

His point is that war settles such issues practically. I'm arguing that there is no valid legal argument for unilateral secession. As this thread is about legal arguments, my point is far more relevant than his for the issues being discussed.

 

[Redfish]

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

that goes without saying, he/she/it is a liberal. Liberalism is a mental disease.

 

[Skylar]

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

Nope. Their actions were explicitly criminal under the system of laws that they lived under. Had they lost they would have been executed as traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't lose. So they are the founders of a new nation.

However, the topic of this discussion is legal arguments justifying secession under our constitution. And secession isn't legal under our constitution.

 

[Redfish]

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

His point is that war settles such issues practically. I'm arguing that there is no valid legal argument for unilateral secession. As this thread is about legal arguments, my point is far more relevant than his for the issues being discussed.

No its not. the premise of the OP is false. That is like saying that a US citizen in China is protected by the US constitution.

 

[Skylar]

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

that goes without saying, he/she/it is a liberal. Liberalism is a mental disease.

So not only have you abandoned any discussion of the legality of secession......not only have you offered us red herrings that have nothing to do with the legality of secession.....your argument has devolved into awkward attempts at personal insults.

If your claims about the legality of secession had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run.

 

[Bombur]

47 pages of arguing about the legality of an action the South never planned to make subject to the law of the land.

The Southern apologists are delusional and ridiculous.

 

[Skylar]

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

His point is that war settles such issues practically. I'm arguing that there is no valid legal argument for unilateral secession. As this thread is about legal arguments, my point is far more relevant than his for the issues being discussed.

No its not. the premise of the OP is false. That is like saying that a US citizen in China is protected by the US constitution.

A state can't secede unilaterally. So it would remain US territory. Thus, we're speaking of a US citizen in the US protected by the US constitution.

 

[Redfish]

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

Nope. Their actions were explicitly criminal under the system of laws that they lived under. Had they lost they would have been executed as traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't lose. So they are the founders of a new nation.

However, the topic of this discussion is legal arguments justifying secession under our constitution. And secession isn't legal under our constitution.

you are using circular logic. you seem to think that a seceding state or states would still be covered by the US constitution. The act of secession would be an act of denying the US constitution.

It would not matter if some constitutional lawyer declared it "illegal". It would be a meaningless declaration.

 

[Redfish]

47 pages of arguing about the legality of an action the South never planned to make subject to the law of the land.

The Southern apologists are delusional and ridiculous.

 

[Bombur]

47 pages of arguing about the legality of an action the South never planned to make subject to the law of the land.

The Southern apologists are delusional and ridiculous.

OK please tell us how the states that left used the legal process for determining the legality of their actions to determine if they were allowed to leave or not. Legally speaking.

Or did they just gather their guns and start a war?

Thanks for demonstrating my point on being delusional though.

 

[Redfish]

47 pages of arguing about the legality of an action the South never planned to make subject to the law of the land.

The Southern apologists are delusional and ridiculous.

OK please tell us how the states that left used the legal process for determining the legality of their actions to determine if they were allowed to leave or not. Legally speaking.

Or did they just gather their guns and start a war?

Thanks for demonstrating my point on being delusional though.

The act of secession will always be considered illegal to the country being seceded from. England considered the declaration of independence illegal and went to war over it, and lost. The north considered the confederacy to be illegal and went to war over it, and won.
The states of the USSR that left Russia "lllegally" divided the USSR. But there was no war, it just broke up into new nations.

the question is not legality, its whether there would be a war and who would win

 

[Skylar]

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

Nope. Their actions were explicitly criminal under the system of laws that they lived under. Had they lost they would have been executed as traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't lose. So they are the founders of a new nation.

However, the topic of this discussion is legal arguments justifying secession under our constitution. And secession isn't legal under our constitution.

you are using circular logic. you seem to think that a seceding state or states would still be covered by the US constitution. The act of secession would be an act of denying the US constitution.

I don't think circular arguments mean what you think they mean. As what you think you're describing isn't it.

The topic of the conversation is the legality of the secession under the US constitution. And such unilateral authority for a state to secede doesn't exist under the constitution. Thus, US law would still apply to US territory. As the US has yet to cede any.

If the US federal government AND the State decided on secession then secession likely would be legal under the Constitution. As both sovereigns would be agreeing to the ceding of territory.

Your argument is an extra-constitutional argument and outside the scope of the thread. Its also irrelevant, as it would still be a rebellion and would still be US territory. The US would treat it as such. The only way for the land to be lost without US consent....would be to defeat the US military and conquer the land.

The same as it would be for anyone else.

 

[Redfish]

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

Nope. Their actions were explicitly criminal under the system of laws that they lived under. Had they lost they would have been executed as traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't lose. So they are the founders of a new nation.

However, the topic of this discussion is legal arguments justifying secession under our constitution. And secession isn't legal under our constitution.

you are using circular logic. you seem to think that a seceding state or states would still be covered by the US constitution. The act of secession would be an act of denying the US constitution.

I don't think circular arguments mean what you think they mean. As what you think you're describing isn't it.

The topic of the conversation is the legality of the secession under the US constitution. And such unilateral authority for a state to secede doesn't exist under the constitution. Thus, US law would still apply to US territory. As the US has yet to cede any.

If the US federal government AND the State decided on secession then secession likely would be legal under the Constitution. As both sovereigns would be agreeing to the ceding of territory.

Your argument is an extra-constitutional argument and outside the scope of the thread. Its also irrelevant, as it would still be a rebellion and would still be US territory. The US would treat it as such. The only way for the land to be lost without US consent....would be to defeat the US military and conquer the land.

The same as it would be for anyone else.

OMG, you are unable to focus on the real issue. I am done with you.

 

[Skylar]

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

Nope. Their actions were explicitly criminal under the system of laws that they lived under. Had they lost they would have been executed as traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't lose. So they are the founders of a new nation.

However, the topic of this discussion is legal arguments justifying secession under our constitution. And secession isn't legal under our constitution.

you are using circular logic. you seem to think that a seceding state or states would still be covered by the US constitution. The act of secession would be an act of denying the US constitution.

I don't think circular arguments mean what you think they mean. As what you think you're describing isn't it.

The topic of the conversation is the legality of the secession under the US constitution. And such unilateral authority for a state to secede doesn't exist under the constitution. Thus, US law would still apply to US territory. As the US has yet to cede any.

If the US federal government AND the State decided on secession then secession likely would be legal under the Constitution. As both sovereigns would be agreeing to the ceding of territory.

Your argument is an extra-constitutional argument and outside the scope of the thread. Its also irrelevant, as it would still be a rebellion and would still be US territory. The US would treat it as such. The only way for the land to be lost without US consent....would be to defeat the US military and conquer the land.

The same as it would be for anyone else.

OMG, you are unable to focus on the real issue. I am done with you.

More accurately, I'm unwilling to abandon the topic of the thread. Which is the legality of secession under the US constitution. If you don't like the premise of the thread, start another. But your arguments have nothing to do with it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Thus are refuted the refutable arguments.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?