Remember when we thought the Department of Homeland “Security” sounded like a good idea? And people being asked to smoke in the back of the of airplane? Wasn’t it Mark Twain who called it, “How to cook a frog”?
I warned the people arguing against birthright citizenship that giving the state the power to strip citizens of citizenship, would backfire.
And I was right. The only thing protecting YOU is citizenship. Chip away at that, and what have you got? Nothing.
Does that mean we get everything for free? We'll get the backing of major portions of commerce.. free university educations.. and .. and
.. that in many cases we'll be above the law! What a deal!
Alien and Sedition Act 2.0
Second on the list anyone possessing a registered firearm.
Third on the list any member of the”Tea Party’ and/or anyone the government and/or media has recorded attending a “Tea Party” event.
Forth on the list all FReepers.
Etc.
Etc,
First on the list is the cheeky Kenyan bastard.
He can fall back on his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenships
More evidence that the real threat to my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness isn’t in Tehran............it is in WASHINGTON DC! The Ruling Class is preparing to make war on the American People.
Like anything else, it is good when practiced by a good administration, and tyrannical when in the hands of a corrupt administration.
A slippery slope to undermine the constitution...sedition, terrorism, acts of hostility, this is what prisons are for...although it seems one way or another, liberals are hell bent on stopping constitutional conservatives, make no mistake about it, this is the ultimate goal.
“First on the list is the cheeky Kenyan bastard.
“He can fall back on his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenships.”
Second on the list is John McCain. He is dual. He is both Panamanian and American.
Are there any Presidential candidates opposed to this bill?
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
“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.
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.)
Cheers!