Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation

[Developereo]

The only thing that is important is stripping citizens who takes arms against the U.S. on political basis. Not kidnapping or robbery. Theres a difference.

I think US citizenship can already be stripped (for several decades) for serious criminal offenses. In other words, committing an armed bank robbery can already strip you of citizenship.

 

[gambit]

Not in a democracy. Not unless they utter the magic phrase 'national security'.



Oy! If your defence comes down to "we're not as bad as X dictatorship", then you have already lost the debate.

For the record, my criticism of US is strictly limited to US foreign policy (and it's effects on human rights). I have always maintained that the US society in general, and the US Constitution in particular, are the gold standard for human rights. Most countries in the world would do well to emulate them. However, the fact remains that those liberties are under attack in the US.

I am hardly the only one making this observation. There are plenty of people within American concerned about the trend.



Oh geez. Just google 'secret evidence' or 'cipa secret' and there's a ton of material.



All true, but irrelevant. We are not debating citizenship in general, but in the context of people who are deemed to be hostile to US interests. You took half my statement. I wrote "For people who are real bad guys, citizenship is irrelevant." In other words, if someone is a real threat, they will be locked up regardless of citizenship. So this proposed law has no impact on the real bad guys.

The ones, including YOU, who have lost the debate here are the ones who failed to support their criticisms of the idea that the US, just like any other country out there, has the right to offer, deny petition, and withdraw citizenship to anyone. Of course, the conditions upon which those actions are based upon are debatable and they are of a different discussion.

newcitizen.us -- Losing US Citizenship

So do present your criticisms of the withdrawal of citizenship based upon the above conditions. We can move to other conditions later.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 AM ----------

I think US citizenship can already be stripped (for several decades) for serious criminal offenses. In other words, committing an armed bank robbery can already strip you of citizenship.

Where and when?

 

[TruthSeeker]

The commission of felonies may deprive the felon of the right to vote, but not his "citizenship". This is a state-by-state matter since voting is managed by each individual state, not the federal government. So, if you equate the loss of the right to vote as "stripping citizenship" then, yes, it is true in my Commonwealth of Virginia for anyone who is convicted of a felony, which includes even forgery or felony drunk driving. But these are not "political" crimes or the consequences of political acts. The felon still has his USA passport. In some cases he may also not be allowed to purchase a firearm, or live next to an elementary school (for certain sex offenders), or hold public office.

 

[gambit]

UAE strips six of citizenship - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

The United Arab Emirates is taking the rare step of revoking the citizenship of six men because of alleged security concerns, although those involved say they are being unjustly targeted for their political views.

And we are the bad guys for even talking about it...

---------- Post added at 01:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

The commission of felonies may deprive the felon of the right to vote, but not his "citizenship". This is a state-by-state matter since voting is managed by each individual state, not the federal government. So, if you equate the loss of the right to vote as "stripping citizenship" then, yes, it is true in my Commonwealth of Virginia for anyone who is convicted of a felony., which includes even forgery or felony drunk driving. But these are not "political" crimes or the consequences of political acts.

Hyperboles and intellectual dishonesty are these guy's stock in trade.

 

[gambit]

Is this true...???

Egyptians who wed Israelis to lose rights

CAIRO: A court has upheld a ruling that strips Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.

Judge Mohammed al-Husseini, sitting in the Supreme Administrative Court, said the Interior Ministry must ask the cabinet to take the necessary steps to strip Egyptian men married to Jewish Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.
The judge cited concerns over Egyptian national security as the reason for the judgment.

So the assumption here is that being a Jew is naturally a hostile condition to Egyptian national security, therefore being married to a Jew makes one a traitor.

But the US is the 'bad guy' for even talking about terrorism as a condition to withdraw citizenship...

 

[Developereo]

The ones, including YOU, who have lost the debate here are the ones who failed to support their criticisms of the idea that the US, just like any other country out there, has the right to offer, deny petition, and withdraw citizenship to anyone. Of course, the conditions upon which those actions are based upon are debatable and they are of a different discussion.

newcitizen.us -- Losing US Citizenship

So do present your criticisms of the withdrawal of citizenship based upon the above conditions. We can move to other conditions later.

No, the debate here isn't about comparing the US to other countries, but to the ideals of its own constitution. Specifically, the debate here is about the vagueness of the term 'supporting hostilities'. The constitution is extremely protective of free speech and any infringement on this right will be vigorously debated. Once again, we are not talking about hostile acts, but 'supporting hostilities'. That's a ridiculously vague charge. Will an American citizen be charged with 'supporting hostilities' if they agree that the Taliban are representative of a certain percentage of Afghans, since such a statement could be construed as giving moral support to enemy combatants?

Where and when?

My bad. That was for permanent residents. The requirements tighten for US citizens. Incidentally, treason (i.e. engaging in activities hostile to US interests) is already ground for stripping citizenship. So, once again, the question arises why this new law?

 

[gambit]

No, the debate here isn't about comparing the US to other countries, but to the ideals of its own constitution. Specifically, the debate here is about the vagueness of the term 'supporting hostilities'. The constitution is extremely protective of free speech and any infringement on this right will be vigorously debated. Once again, we are not talking about hostile acts, but 'supporting hostilities'. That's a ridiculously vague charge. Will an American citizen be charged with 'supporting hostilities' if they agree that the Taliban are representative of a certain percentage of Afghans?

It is 'vague' only if there are historical precedents. This is where your arguments failed spectacularly, that even today there are far stronger criticisms of the US government, regardless of administration, than what you are implying to qualify as treasonous acts. Look at the organization 'Code Pink'. Or how about the older 'ACLU'.

My bad. That was for permanent residents. The requirements tighten for US citizens. Incidentally, treason (i.e. engaging in activities hostile to US interests) is already ground for stripping citizenship. So, once again, the question arises why this new law?

To clarify under the generic 'Treason' what could -- not must -- make a US citizen no longer. It is NOT as vague as you intellectually dishonestly tried to make it...

Read The Bill: H.R. 3166 - GovTrack.us

For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

If an act is prosecutable under what are accepted as 'laws of war', then said act can render a person a non-US citizen. Criticism of US foreign policy is NOT covered under 'laws of war'.

 

[Perceptron]

A few forum members may have to start packing their bags.

Hyperbole apart, this one cracked me up .

 

[Developereo]

To clarify under the generic 'Treason' what could -- not must -- make a US citizen no longer. It is NOT as vague as you intellectually dishonestly tried to make it...

Read The Bill: H.R. 3166 - GovTrack.us

If an act is prosecutable under what are accepted as 'laws of war', then said act can render a person a non-US citizen. Criticism of US foreign policy is NOT covered under 'laws of war'.

That was my qualification from the beginning that "if the law is as vague as that", then it's wrong. Glad to see the wording is much more precise than the reporting.

Here's the definition of treason from Article Three of US Constituion (from wikipedia)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

So, what exactly does this new law add that isn't already covered by the above definition?

 

[gambit]

Here's the definition of treason from Article Three of US Constituion (from wikipedia)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

So, what exactly does this new law add that isn't already covered by the above definition?

Here you go...

Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you show the readers anywhere in there that says criticisms of the US government in general, not just foreign policy, are prosecutable under the accepted laws of war?

 

[Developereo]

Here you go...

Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you show the readers anywhere in there that says criticisms of the US government in general, not just foreign policy, are prosecutable under the accepted laws of war?

Again, here's what I wrote to qualify my criticism:

Assuming the law is written so broadly as the article alleges, I can't see how it would even pass since it amounts to thought control. The definition of 'supporting' would have to be tightened.

The law itself is worded much more carefully than the report about it. Specifically, it has the magic word 'materially' that I was looking for.

P.S. Perhaps you can show us what this new law adds which isn't already covered under 'treason' in Article Three of the Constitution.

 

[gambit]

That was my qualification from the beginning that "if the law is as vague as that", then it's wrong. Glad to see the wording is much more precise than the reporting.

Then this make you foolish, gullible, and childishly eager to baselessly criticize US when it is quite easy to prove otherwise.

 

[Developereo]

Then this make you foolish, gullible, and childishly eager to baselessly criticize US when it is quite easy to prove otherwise.

Wrong. From the beginning I wrote that the law seemed too broad to pass Constitutional hurdles. You can check my posts.

I googled but couldn't find the full text of the law until you posted.

 

[Khan_patriot]

from this all i understood is that any Muslim residing in the US can be assaulted, threatened, beaten, abused and then finally stripped of his nationality and thrown in gitmo bay for anything the US considers a ''threat'', this gives the US admin the go ahead to do what it to the ''enemy''.....

 

[53fd]

Fascism at its very best. What is America becoming?