Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation

[Donatello]

The funny thing is that Americans have allowed the Government to become a dictator and slowly gaining in on their rights and taking them away.


And we thought Kim-Jong-Il was evil.

 

[gambit]

The funny thing is that Americans have allowed the Government to become a dictator and slowly gaining in on their rights and taking them away.


And we thought Kim-Jong-Il was evil.

Given a choice between US and NKR, you would chose US and everyone here knows it. The word 'coward' is an understatement for the likes of you.

 

[gambit]

Apparently they can take away your citizenship if they deem you an enemy to the country.

You mean something like this...???

BBC News - Russian spy Anna Chapman is stripped of UK citizenship

Anna Chapman, one of the Russian spies deported from the United States, has been deprived of her British citizenship, the BBC understands.

She has lost her British citizenship and exclusion is expected to follow, meaning she cannot travel to the UK.

Every country has AT LEAST the right, if not the duty, to deny citizenship to anyone who either raised arms against it or perform duties on behalf of another country where the consequences of actions are either found or deemed to be adverse to said country. Anyone who insists otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[regular]

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

Yes! If there will be no due process means there will be no law and order, no freedom. The old times slavery system will come into affect. This will means the country has gone within the past....

 

[Developereo]

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

The troublesome part is not that, but the bolded part below:

If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States.

What exactly constitutes 'supporting hostilities'? Is the definition restricted to actual physical combat, or will expressing an opinion contrary to administration policies be construed as 'supporting hostilities'?

This is not just idle scaremongering. A number of (Caucasian) media personalities in Australia have complained of being harassed under the anti-terror laws, simply because they had investigated questionable activities by some politicians.

 

[gambit]

The troublesome part is not that, but the bolded part below:



What exactly constitutes 'supporting hostilities'? Is the definition restricted to actual physical combat, or will expressing an opinion contrary to administration policies be construed as 'supporting hostilities'?

This is not just idle scaremongering. A number of (Caucasian) media personalities in Australia have complained of being harassed under the anti-terror laws, simply because they had investigated questionable activities by some politicians.

Of course it is scaremongering. I doubt that Chomsky and Zinn, if the latter still lives, and their kind, would worry about this.

 

[Developereo]

Of course it is scaremongering. I doubt that Chomsky and Zinn, if the latter still lives, and their kind, would worry about this.

Because they are high-profile. The whole point of the law is to leave prosecution at the government's discretion. This is intended to stifle dissent.

Stripping citizenship is silly anyway: SCOTUS has ruled that Constitutional protections apply to anyone, even illegals, on US soil. The only use for stripping citizenship is to deport people and, if someone is seriously engaged in hostilities, they would be locked up, not let loose to roam the world.

 

[gambit]

Because they are high-profile. The whole point of the law is to leave prosecution at the government's discretion. This is intended to stifle dissent.

So what? If anything, assuming the implied broadness of the law is true, then going after these high profile characters to make examples out of them would make eminent sense to discourage others from going 'high profile'.

Stripping citizenship is silly anyway: SCOTUS has ruled that Constitutional protections apply to anyone, even illegals, on US soil.

This is unrelated. Of course on US soil, basic Constitutional rights are applicable and even then, those convicted of felonies have some citizenship rights denied, such as the right to vote, aka 'felony disenfranchisement', or their 2nd Amendment right equally denied. So if we can abrogate some Constitutional rights to some citizens under some circumstances, we can certainly do the same for citizenship.

The only use for stripping citizenship is to deport people and, if someone is seriously engaged in hostilities, they would be locked up, not let loose to roam the world.

This is a false dichotomy. If we can lock up foreign nationals for violating our laws, we can certainly lock up stateless persons AFTER we strip him/her of citizenship.

 

[Developereo]

So what? If anything, assuming the implied broadness of the law is true, then going after these high profile characters to make examples out of them would make eminent sense to discourage others from going 'high profile'.

No, the use for such laws is to let the fear of prosecution do the job. The government would never go after high-profile cases who can afford expensive legal defence or media exposure. The whole point is to make the average Joe think twice before saying anything, just to stay well clear of the law. 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.

This is unrelated. Of course on US soil, basic Constitutional rights are applicable and even then, those convicted of felonies have some citizenship rights denied, such as the right to vote, aka 'felony disenfranchisement', or their 2nd Amendment right equally denied. So if we can abrogate some Constitutional rights to some citizens under some circumstances, we can certainly do the same for citizenship.

You are right. The right to cross-examine evidence and witnesses is already denied to persons accused of terrorism.

This is a false dichotomy. If we can lock up foreign nationals for violating our laws, we can certainly lock up stateless persons AFTER we strip him/her of citizenship.

That's my point. For people who are real bad guys, citizenship is irrelevant. So I am not sure what is the point of this law to strip citizenship. Is it just to deport people who annoy the government but are not evil enough to be locked up?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

if there were no sanctions on North Korea probbly their people would be happy and living more healthier life , but as we know USA has a sanction fetish due to having nuclear weapons and fighter jets and missiles but days of tyranny will end no doubt and people in north korea or iran will have sanction free lives

 

[TruthSeeker]

but what about critique?
since that too lands many in jail.

Santro, Sir,

Please give one or two examples of Americans who have landed in jail because of their "critiques" of America.

 

[gambit]

No, the use for such laws is to let the fear of prosecution do the job. The government would never go after high-profile cases who can afford expensive legal defence or media exposure. The whole point is to make the average Joe think twice before saying anything, just to stay well clear of the law.

Give US all a break. The government has unlimited power.

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.

If the US government let Jane Fonda continued to make million$ and spew her hatred for the country that allowed her to do both, I do not think we need to worry about the definition of 'supporting'. Give it up, for every hypothetical situation you can try to bring up to make US the equivalent of the sorry dictatorships in the ME, I can bring up several REAL situations to prove you wrong.

You are right. The right to cross-examine evidence and witnesses is already denied to persons accused of terrorism.

Bring up an example and let us examine it.

That's my point. For people who are real bad guys, citizenship is irrelevant. So I am not sure what is the point of this law to strip citizenship. Is it just to deport people who annoy the government but are not evil enough to be locked up?

Citizenship carries with it additional rights and privileges. For example: If you are in trouble overseas, the responsibility of coming to your aid would be the country of allegiance. A stateless person would be left to the mercy of strangers. If citizenship is irrelevant regardless of attitude, those who are hostile to US would have renounced their US citizenship a long time ago. The reality is that being stateless is a most sorry condition to live...

UNHCR - Stateless People Figures

Stateless people often live in a precarious situation on the margins of society, frequently lack identity documentation and often are subject to discrimination.

If wealth is the solution, then the world's wealthy people would have fled their countries of allegiance a long time ago and live unencumbered roaming the seas in luxury.

 

[Awesome]

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

How would this work... If they were born in the US, and have US nationality where would you expatriate them and why would the other country take them?

 

[Developereo]

The government has unlimited power.

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

If the US government let Jane Fonda continued to make million$ and spew her hatred for the country that allowed her to do both, I do not think we need to worry about the definition of 'supporting'. Give it up, for every hypothetical situation you can try to bring up to make US the equivalent of the sorry dictatorships in the ME, I can bring up several REAL situations to prove you wrong.

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.

Bring up an example and let us examine it.

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

Citizenship carries with it additional rights and privileges.

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.

 

[Oldman1]

if there were no sanctions on North Korea probbly their people would be happy and living more healthier life , but as we know USA has a sanction fetish due to having nuclear weapons and fighter jets and missiles but days of tyranny will end no doubt and people in north korea or iran will have sanction free lives

North Korea shouldn't have to put itself under sanctions in the first place.

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

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 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.