Posted on 01/15/2012 10:31:26 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
A bill has been introduced in the United States Senate which will authorize the federal government to revoke the citizenship, creating practical expatriates, of American citizens.
Introduced by Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman and Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, S 1698, the “Enemy Expatriation Act,” is a simple, 2 page document which offers apparently innocent amendments and additions to existing federal legislation. (1)
That legislation, known as Title 8, “…outlines the role of aliens and nationality in the U.S. Code.” And it is just one small piece of this massive and complex law which the Enemy Expatriation Act seeks to modify, that being Section 349, the means by which “a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality…,” that is, his citizenship. (2)
Though there is currently little contained in Section 349 which would alarm any American citizen, one phrase added to the legislation by the “Enemy Expatriation Act” would change everything.
For it states that anyone voluntarily “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States” will lose his “nationality.” And nationality means citizenship! (1)
To be sure, most of us would be in favor of revoking American citizenship if it has been improperly, perhaps surreptitiously attained by Muslim terrorists who have entered the United States only to commit acts of violence and murder.
But it’s necessary to remember who we are dealing with in Washington, DC.
To Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security, it is Libertarians, soldiers returning from combat, gun owners, militia members, devout believers in the Constitution and those who loudly mistrust and criticize the federal government who are the true threats of “engaging in hostilities against the United States.”
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Just who or what makes that decision?
What is the exact criteria to determine such acts of support or hostility?
Some nameless faceless group of bureaucrats buried behind layers of anonymity in a government agency stacked to the gills with communist agenda "progressive and liberal" donks?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
.s what I thought.
Just who or what makes that decision?
What is the exact criteria to determine such acts of support or hostility?
Some nameless faceless group of bureaucrats buried behind layers of anonymity in a government agency stacked to the gills with communist agenda "progressive and liberal" donks?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
. progressive and liberal
When the doors to illegals are wide open and states become inundated with people who can't speak English and work cheap with no benefits, citizenship becomes a moot benefit to living here if laws protecting citizens are not enforced.
Most homeowners in association don't speak English; what to do?
“engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States” will lose his “nationality.”
Isn’t that a large part of Congress and a larger part of the present administration?
What about lawyers who represent illegals against American citizens?
S 1698 IS
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1698
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 12, 2011
Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.
SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.
(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.
(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.
This is nutcase stuff. Everything else that has been posted here by “old coach” has had factual errors in it a mile wide. I will not give this any credence until I read about it from a reliable source with a respect for the truth.
Dear La Lydia,
You have a perfect right to consider this “nutcase stuff.” But I suggest you connect to the links which detail both the bill and the law it seeks to amend. Then follow the other links which go into how all of this was done quite legally with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, basing the authority granted by that law on the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed just after 9/11. All of these are made legal according to the “Laws of War.”
I certainly agree with you that it’s nutcase stuff. Unfortunately, it’s our DC ruling class which is NUTS!
Neither Congress nor the President nor any Federal court has any authority to abrogate citizenship for anyone whose status as a citizen is defined by the Constitution.
The Constitution grants Congress the authority to make rules for naturalization of citizens (which is the conferral of citizenship on someone who would not be a citizen without an act of Congress,) but not to make any laws that redefine who is or is not a citizen in the absence of any act of Congress. A person either is or is not a Constitutional citizen, and no act of Congress can change that either way. Congress can naturalize a non-Constitutional citizen, but is granted no other authority on the subject.
For example, Congress cannot pass a law that would nullify the clause in the 14th Amendment that makes anyone born on US soil to a legally-resident alien a US citizen, nor one that changes the definition of who is or is not a natural-born citizen (see Minor vs Happersett.)
I infer from your comments that you support repealing the entire current statute, as well as oppose enactment of the revision. I think that would be a tragic, dangerous mistake. The posted article reads like it was written by Roseanne Roseannadanna.
Reminds me of Starship Trooper, where citizenship is earned thru Federal Service.
You are incorrect. What makes you a citizen is that you were born to parents that owe their allegiance to the United States of America. That is why children born to foreign diplomats on US soil aren't USC's.
Nothing is being stripped away. We are going back to the original intent of the Founders, the US Constitution and in particualr the 14th amendment.
Then you can show me where the constitution supports your definition.
Aside from the exception for foreign dignitaries, yes, you are a citizen of America if you are born in America.
Unfortunately the constitution disagrees with you. Born in america is sufficient.
Or in this case - allegience to Obama.
But never fear it won’t happen to you. ;)
La Lydia,
I remember Roseanne well. She never failed to end her broadcasts with “never mind”, right?
You’re quite right about the 7 points in 1481. And the addition of the 8th makes the difference. “Hostilities” are defined in the EEA as “any conflict subject to the laws of war.”
But you might be missing one very key item, specified in the EEA. Look at Section 2 Loss of Nationality. See (B) and read it as it says to strike the period at the end of Para 7 and insert “or” and then Para 8, the new addition. This means it will no longer be necessary to convict someone by a court martial or a court of competent jurisdiction. The only necessity if EEA is made law will be the terms of Para 8! And as is the fact with the NDAA of 2012, it will be pretty much up to the discretion of the federal government, the president really, as to who is stripped of citizenship, for the president will make the call on the hostility question. And we’ve just watched as Obama totally ignored the law in making his “recess” appointment.
No, I don’t believe that 1481 should be repealed. But the EEA is a scary and DANGEROUS piece of work. It could have been made quite specific in its targets—only naturalized citizens, for example. But no, it includes ALL American citizens, by design.
And unlike Roseanne, I’ll not say “never mind.” Just be careful of trusting the good intentions of today’s DC ruling class.
And I have a bridge for sale.
To Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security, it is Libertarians, soldiers returning from combat, gun owners, militia members, devout believers in the Constitution and those who loudly mistrust and criticize the federal government who are the true threats of "engaging in hostilities against the United States."
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.