What's new

Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation

I have no trouble stripping citizenship from a person who becomes a combatant, but there should be due process first.

That's the catch 22 this bill seeks to raise.Declare someone a traitor without the accused having his day in court.It's hardly anything new to foreign nationals who were subjected to rendition and detainment without charge by the United States.Their cases got squashed on the pretext of ''national security''.I guess what goes around comes around in the end.
 
.
... but those who live in the US as citizens but those who show glee at their troops being murdered or wish for the country to be nuked will be affected and rightly so...

Even the individuals in the above category are only expressing 'opinion' ...
 
.
i dont think people criticising US policies will be affected by this but those who live in the US as citizens but those who show glee at their troops being murdered or wish for the country to be nuked will be affected and rightly so.:coffee:

Not really... We already have people who celebrate and party over deaths of U.S. servicemen. They show up at funerals, picket and say disgusting things. Everyone hates them, but their speech is protected.

I can picket and say "The U.S. should be nuked because I hate this country" and it too would be legal, protected speech.

Remember, criticism is fine. Being a jerk is legal. Incitement to violence is not.
 
.
Post 9-11 I've witnessed innocent Pakistanis/Muslims being thrown into Gitmo.

The state was never supposed to have this much power in the minds of the Sons of Liberty or Fathers of the nation.

The right to bare arms as the second amendment was for the purpose that, should the government have too much power the people can go and rise against it.
 
.
Not really... We already have people who celebrate and party over deaths of U.S. servicemen. They show up at funerals, picket and say disgusting things. Everyone hates them, but their speech is protected.

I can picket and say "The U.S. should be nuked because I hate this country" and it too would be legal, protected speech.

Remember, criticism is fine. Being a jerk is legal. Incitement to violence is not.
isnt wishing for a country to be nuked and saying other provocative things , incitement of violence ? I guess we will have to wait and see how this law is worded and how it is interpreted by the judges in courts .

---------- Post added at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------

Even the individuals in the above category are only expressing 'opinion' ...
there have to bereasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech . We will have to wait and see where the american legislature and courts draw the line .
 
.
Post 9-11 I've witnessed innocent Pakistanis/Muslims being thrown into Gitmo.

The state was never supposed to have this much power in the minds of the Sons of Liberty or Fathers of the nation.

Your views of Innocence depends on which side of the fence you are from, In Multi cultural, multi ethnic societies some sections will feel a certain amount of injustice in the law, but overall the state is the one that protects its actual people and some countries like the US, India who face terrorism from outside have to strengthen their internal security and procedures to prevent these outside elements as well as draft laws to award punishment and take steps to remove them from their society.
 
.
Regardless of what ever people say.. i will always be Pak i-American.
 
.
Regardless of what ever people say.. i will always be Pak i-American.

Apparently they can take away your citizenship if they deem you an enemy to the country.
 
. .
isnt wishing for a country to be nuked and saying other provocative things , incitement of violence ? I guess we will have to wait and see how this law is worded and how it is interpreted by the judges in courts .

---------- Post added at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------

there have to bereasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech . We will have to wait and see where the american legislature and courts draw the line .

Even 'wishing for a country to be nuked' is not really 'incitement to violence' - who exactly is the individual 'inciting to violence'? Another State? Are you really going to argue that another State/Government will decide to 'Nuke XYZ nation' because some random individual said so?

An influential individual (say an Imam, Rabbi or Priest) calling upon his 'flock' to 'murder those of another faith because they are scum and you will go to heaven if you do so' is a better example of 'inciting violence'.

The rhetoric of most Right-Wing US commentators better fits the 'incitement of violence' description than the random expressions of anger at the US by many on the internet.

I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if the US courts uphold the law as is, without the right to due process available to US citizens. Seems like a violation of underlying principles of the US constitution.

BTW, a law like this in Pakistan would essentially result in the dismissal of all 'missing persons cases' before the Pakistani judiciary, along with an end to criticizm of 'extrajudicial detentions of suspected terrorists' - what would our US worshiping liberals say then?
 
.
Witch Hunt law , when it will be deemed fit they will build concentration camps like Nazis lol how convenient for US, they have a law
 
. .
Terrorist Expatriation Act Summary
Background: An existing federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, identifies seven categories of acts for which U.S. citizens lose their citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of those acts “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” The list includes acts such as:
•
Serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state” if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States;
•
Formally renouncing nationality whenever the United States is in a state of war; or
•
Committing treason against the United States.

The Terrorist Expatriation Act would simply add another category to the list of acts for which a U.S. national would lose his nationality, namely: providing material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the Secretary of State, or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.
Purpose: The Terrorist Expatriation Act brings existing federal law up to date for the war on terror that the United States is currently fighting against terrorists at home and abroad. Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) are not covered by the existing expatriation law because they are not “foreign states.”
When the existing statute was enacted decades ago, Congress could not have anticipated enemies like the ones we are fighting today. Nonetheless, U.S. nationals who join al-Qaeda and other FTOs, declare America to be enemy soil, and take up arms with the goal of killing Americans should forfeit their rights to American citizenship or other nationality status, just as they would if they had joined the armed forces of any nation with whom the United States was at war.
This Act will provide another important tool for our military and intelligence communities to use against homegrown terrorists who travel abroad and join groups intent on attacking our homeland and Americans and our allies throughout the world. Under this Act, those individuals will not subsequently be able to use their American passports to travel back to the United States or elsewhere in the world to commit acts of terror.
How the Existing Statute Works: Under the existing federal statute, to which this provision would be added, the State Department must make an administrative determination that an individual has lost his or her U.S. nationality. The Secretary of State must approve a certificate of loss of nationality, and a copy of the certificate must also be provided to the Attorney General. The State Department has established a Board of Appellate Review to hear appeals from administrative decisions that result in the loss of nationality. An individual may also challenge that holding in federal district court. The burden of proof, by a preponderance of evidence, would be on the party asserting that loss of citizenship has occurred. This statutory scheme has been upheld, including the burden of proof, by the United States Supreme Court in a 1980 decision, Vance v. Terrazas. In1986, Congress amended the existing statute to codify the Supreme Court’s holding that an expatriating act must be committed with the intent of relinquishing citizenship status for loss of citizenship to occur. This bill does not alter that requirement in any way.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_summary.pdf
 
.
If you strip citizenship from a person having none other, then that person becomes truly stateless.

Where is he supposed to go then ? Sail the high seas as a pirate ?

Actually yes, he can do that. There have been cases of people taking up British/French citizenships.......i think there was a article i recently read in which a guy was picked up from Bosnia, shipped to Abu Gharaib (The American Terrorism base) and when he was found not guilty, he went to live in France.


Most European countries have procedures on providing aid/asylum/refugee status to stateless persons.
 
.
Liberman seems to be following a self fulfilling prophecy.

If the law is passed, ship him to you all know where.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom