Is it legal for American politicians to accept donations from foreigners (non-American citizens)? In recent years, several laws have been passed in Russia, which make it harder for foreign organizations to influence Russian politics. The critics of those laws regard them as undemocratic. Their proponents claim that they cannot be undemocratic because most of these laws were copied from American ones, the United States is the most democratic country in the world, hence, by doing the same thing the US does, Russia gets closer to the American democratic ideal. If item 1 of this logic is correct, it must be illegal for non-American individuals and organizations to exert influence on American politics. The probably most important way to do so is to give donations to politicians. Therefore my question: Is an American politician allowed to receive donations from a non-American citizen living outside the US? In other words: If I as a Russian citizen wanted to make a donation to, say, Donald Trump, could he legally accept it?
Title 52, section 30121 of the US Code is the section regulating election spending by foreign nationals. Specifically, it forbids both making and accepting said contributions, as well as banning independent expenditures: (a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for- (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make- (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (1) would get you. (2) would get Trump. Extradition may be difficult, but you have committed a US crime if Trump takes that contribution, and if you do turn up in the US then the US might prosecute you for it (they almost certainly won't, but they could).
They can't take his citizenship... Since he claims to be a born citizen, he has citizenship by birthright and nothing CBP can do can possibly revoke it. He can voluntarily renounce his citizenship, but he has to do that through the State Dept. (which CBP is not part of). And that is an elaborate and expensive process that can't even be done inside the United States. If someone could do it merely by entering without papers and asking for a self-deport, lots of expats would save a lot of money - and that's not gonna happen :) ...but they could put him to serious inconvenience In this particular case, CBP found his documents suspect. Probably because (if it's the case we've seen documented elsewhere) he was with two other people whose entry was illegal, and they had forged documents. So most likely, if he agreed to self-deport, CBP would use that as prima-facie evidence that he is not a bona-fide citizen, and therefore, that his papers are faked. They certainly will not give fake papers back to someone who has tried to pass them. So the victim would be obliged to go back to SSA, the state, etc. and re-acquire his identity documents. From outside the country. It's a pretty big chore.
No The first paragraph of Article 1 section 10 of the US constitution provides in relevant part: No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ... Cites are created by and authorized by the states, and no city my do anything forbidden to a state. Creating &quot;SomeVilleCoins&quot; would violate the above provision, even if no one was required to accept it. Note that a business is not required to accept even US currency for purchases under current law, although it must accept it in payment of existing debts. Congress could mandate acceptance of cash for purchases, but has not done so.
This question really depends on the specific countries involved, as all law depends on jurisdiction. However, there are essentially two ways that breaking into foreign computer systems could be illegal: 1) Your own country has laws against hacking that include hacking into foreign computers or 2) The country you're breaking into has laws about hacking that are not limited to citizens. In the first case, your own country would find such "hacking" illegal; in the second, your target country would find such "hacking" illegal. If you violate the first, which is the less likely option, you could be traced, located and prosecuted by your own country. If you violate the second, which is the more likely option, the target country would target you for extradition and prosecution. Depending on the amount of political power your target country has, this could result in you being shipped off to another country to face their courts, without the protection of your own country. In other words, it could very well be illegal, though the specific sentence resulting from such a crime is far too specific to even attempt to address in the general case.
Insofar as those treaties don't bind the US, the notion of "violating" such laws is moot. Hoda Muthana is, under Yemeni law, a Yemeni citizen (it is immaterial whether she has ever "accepted" or exploited it), and as such stripping her of US citizenship would not leave her stateless. In the case of Hoda Muthana, the action is based on the legal argument that she was not ever a citizen, based on the premise that her father was a foreign diplomat. Under US law, children born to foreign diplomats in the US are not birthright citizens, following US v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship cannot be revoked. However, a person can renounce their citizenship, via certain acts, including taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;or (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer The defense argument would presumably be that ISIS is not a foreign state (despite their own claims to the contrary) so her affiliation with ISIS does not qualify. There are grounds for denaturalization, including falsifying or concealing relevant facts pertaining to naturalization, refusing to testify before Congress, or joining a subversive organization including Al Qaeda within 5 years of naturalization.
Your caveat about not being a national of either country is a bit puzzling, because your question is about acquiring the countries' nationality, which implies as a matter of course that you do not presently have either nationality. After acquiring each country's nationality, of course, you will be a national of that country, so by the time you are a dual citizen of Italy and the US, it will no longer be true that you are not a national of either country. In other words, it's analogous to asking "Will I be able to get a driver's license after I learn how to drive? The problem is that I don't have a driver's license." US law does not require you to renounce Italian citizenship if you naturalize as a US citizen. I don't know Italian law on the matter very well, but the relevant section in Wikipedia says, without citations, that naturalizing elsewhere does not cause loss of Italian citizenship. Assuming that is true, and that neither country makes any relevant changes in its nationality law, then the answer to your question is yes: you can be a dual citizen of both Italy and the United States. (In fact, you may at that point hold three or more citizenships if your current country or countries of citizenship does not or do not have laws causing you to lose citizenship when you naturalize in Italy or the US.)
In the United States, at least, this is a pretty easy question. There are of course plenty of reasons not to enjoy the e-mail. Perhaps the reader gets too much spam. Perhaps the reader is a fascist. But no one who accepts the American conception of free speech should have any trouble intuiting whether sending this e-mail was legal. Communications in support of a political candidate are at the heart of First Amendment protection. Any suggestion that the e-mail violated the law because it communicated Barrett's electoral preferences is going to be a loser. Brinkman v. Budish, 692 F. Supp. 2d 855, 861 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (&quot;First Amendment protection is at its zenith for core political speech which involves interactive communication concerning political change.” (quoting Buckley v. Amer. Const. Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 186–87 (1999)). The question of whether users consented is basically irrelevant. Americans do not need permission from the government or anyone else to communicate their positions on presidential elections, dog-catcher elections, or anything else. Watchtower Bible &amp; Tract Soc'y of New York, Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 165–66 (2002) (&quot;It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society — that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.&quot;). Even if consent mattered, Expensify's users have presumably all agreed to its privacy policy, which alerts them that Expensify may send them &quot;electronic newsletters&quot; or &quot;important notices,&quot; two categories of communications that are broad enough to include the e-mail in question. This also means that if Expensify is otherwise compliant with GDPR and other privacy obligations, there probably isn't much of an argument to be made that the e-mail violated any of those laws. The fact that the e-mail is technically coming from a corporation does not matter, as corporate entities are allowed to take positions on political questions. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 342 (2010) (&quot;First Amendment protection extends to corporations.&quot;). Nonprofit organizations are generally an exception, as they essentially surrender First Amendment protection in exchange for their tax exemptions. One could attempt to argue that the e-mail is somehow an in-kind donation to the campaign. That argument would fail, but even if it were viable, that would not make the e-mail illegal; it would merely require Expensify to report it consistent with campaign-finance regulations.
In a democratic country, they cannot be sued successfully. Freedom of speech is for the citizens, not the government. And it is a company doing the banning, not the government. So the situation is totally different in two significant ways. (That assumes laws not too different from the USA. Obviously a country might have laws that make it illegal for companies not to publish what a political party says).