Posted on 10/23/2014 11:13:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz doesn't trust Barack Obama to protect Americans against Ebola, defeat the Islamic State, oversee the IRS or revamp the health insurance system. He decries the expansion of federal power Obama has brought about. But Cruz wants to give him another power by letting him decide that some Americans will no longer be Americans.
That's the implication of the senator's Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would let the government go to court to revoke the citizenship of anyone who joins or aids a foreign terrorist group that targets Americans. Cruz thinks this step is necessary to prevent citizens who leave to fight for the Islamic State from returning to carry out "unspeakable acts of terror here at home."
It's not necessary, in strict point of fact. Federal law already makes it a crime to murder Americans and to provide material assistance to terrorist organizations. So anyone who becomes a terrorist for the Islamic State can be arrested and prosecuted and incarcerated for a long time.
John Walker Lindh, who gained infamy as "the American Taliban," is doing a 20-year sentence for fighting alongside our enemies in Afghanistan. As it happens, he remains a U.S. citizen. More recently, Americans have been arrested while trying to leave the U.S. to fight with al-Qaida.
But letting the federal government deprive Americans of their nationality is something that should give pause to anyone acquainted with the Constitution or history. In the bitter aftermath of World War II, a California native named Iva Toguri D'Aquino, accused of being the notorious "Tokyo Rose," was convicted of treason for doing propaganda broadcasts for Japan, sentenced to 10 years in prison and stripped of her citizenship.
Her conviction, historian Edwin Reischauer wrote, was the product of a public "under the influence of traditional racial prejudices and far from free of the anti-Japanese hatreds of the recent war." In 1977, President Gerald Ford acknowledged the injustice by pardoning D'Aquino and restoring her citizenship.
Cruz, who clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and has argued cases before the Supreme Court, is well-acquainted with the Constitution. So he is guilty of deception, not ignorance, when he approvingly quotes Hillary Clinton's statement that working with foreign terrorist groups can be punished in this way because "United States citizenship is a privilege. It is not a right."
Actually, it is a right, affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the states in which they reside." It does not say "unless..." The amendment provides no conditions under which a citizen may be deprived of citizenship.
In 1967, the Supreme Court barred the government from disinheriting one of its own for voting in an election in Israel. "We reject the idea," wrote Justice Hugo Black, that "Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent."
Experts from across the political spectrum reject the legality of what Cruz wants to do. John Bellinger III, legal adviser for the National Security Council and the State Department under President George W. Bush, told me, "It would be very difficult under our Constitution to strip a U.S. national of citizenship; the government would have to show the U.S. national specifically intended to give up his citizenship."
University of Houston law professor Emily Berman, former counsel to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, concurs. "It is unconstitutional to take away an American's citizenship without her consent -- citizenship may be voluntarily relinquished, but not unilaterally stripped by the federal government," she said.
Powers of this kind are susceptible to abuse. "Material support" for terrorist groups, the Supreme Court has said, can include those who engage in mere speech -- even, notes the American Civil Liberties Union, "if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives." Citizens wouldn't have to fire AK-47s to come under banishment.
As for those who do fire AK-47s, representatives of the U.S. government may kill them in Iraq or arrest them at a port of entry. Cruz's measure offers no additional deterrent or protection.
Giving additional power to the president is something to be done rarely, reluctantly and only when there is no good alternative. On any day he's not pushing the Expatriate Terrorist Act, Ted Cruz would tell you that.
Because in case nobody has noticed. The word terrorist is always, and nearly exclusively used against Obama opponents. That’s us folks.
Nobody thinks moslems are ever terrorist. THAT is why I’m against any new terror laws. Why do they need a new law to help fight what they can’t even identify?
If Cruz wants to do some good, he needs to work on ending American support for jihadi nations.
I like it. That would solve the citizenship issue permanently now wouldn't it.
bump
By joining a terrorist organization and taking up arms against the US Military, its allies or civilian populations you have performed an act of self expatriation.
You voluntarily relinquished your citizenship by joining the jihad, the government did nothing unilaterally, you did it all by yourself. All the government needs to do is conduct a hearing to determine if YOU self expatriated.
By the way you need not be present in the US for the hearing to take place.
Just send them to Allah.
If they are stripped of citizenship where do you send them? Perhaps put them on a Navy ship for life like “The Man Without a Country”? Work their asses off and no one is allowed to ever speak to them again?
I'll take "Things that make you say 'Duh!'" for $600, Alex.
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t gonna resign.
No. We should strip them of LIFE. Preferably, after amputation of the right hand and castration. And sew them into a pigskin as a shroud. . .
Since I’d first have given the life, they’d be in a pen someplace. I prefer an ice floe in north Alaska.
I like that. And “global warming” will take care of the rest.
I cannot agree with Cruz on this one. We do not need a law for this.
When someone steps to the other side to provide aid to them or fight against the USA, they have committed treason.
The punishment for treason is death not having your citizenship revoked.
A scenario, if CW2/3 opens up and the great South rises again to kick the living crap out of the brown shirts, I will be there with my weapons raised against the corruption in DC. I will fight and if we win, hurrah I may die in battle. If we come out on the short end of the stick, I may die either one way or another, in battle or at the end of a rope for treason. Now this is just a scenario mind you....probably never happen...
Now Kaslin are your willing to be a traitor??
There is a big difference between a enemy combatant i.e uniformed armed forces captured on the battlefield. They are covered under Geneva.
Terrorist by their very nature UNLAWFULL enemy combatants and as such enjoy no such treaty protections. The dem/left has been trying to blur the lines between the two for years.
Of course.
Look at what we have now.
Isis declared war on the US and some US
citizens” went to join Isis.
Then some in congress and the wh think it’s ok to let them come back.
Robert E. Lee didn’t get his citizenship back until the mid-1970s...and he was hardly a terrorist.
‘Because in case nobody has noticed. The word terrorist is always, and nearly exclusively used against Obama opponents. That’s us folks.’
This is true.
We should not revoke their citizenship as much as we should simply execute them.
If revoking their citizenship expedites their execution and short circuits the interminable appeals process then it’s a good idea.
Hang em.
Hang em for all to see.
Hang em so their families see.
Then hang their families ...
Not so fast, please.
I have some reservations about this. I understand your sentiment, but there is a downside to this.
What happens when someone like 0vomit is in office and decides that you and I are “terrorists?” Remember all the guidelines that DHS (or FBI or whatever) put out about being on the lookout among Christians and veterans for domestic terrorism? They would get a law like this passed, then use it to execute their political enemies by having them declared terrorists. This is the liberals license to kill anyone they don’t like.
Strip them of their lives. Treasonous traitors!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.