[La Lydia]

I read it on the Library of Congress' bill tracking website. Then I looked at the existing statute, that is, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, originally enacted in 1961 and substantially revised in 1967. Existing statute ALREADY IDENTIFIES SEVEN CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH CITIZENS CAN LOSE THEIR U.S. CITIZENSHIP, this is NOTHING NEW, if they perform one of those acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." Under the proposed revision of the existing statute, an eighth category would be added for a person who "engages in hostilities or purposefully and materially supports hostilities against the United States." Hostilities means war or acts of terrorism or instigation/encouragement thereof. I have never seen the word "hostilities" used to mean domestic civil disobedience or political opposition. The target here is someone like the late, unlamented Anwar al Alwaki, who recruited other American citizens to attack our homeland and Americans and American assets abroad. He was born in the US to parents who were studying here and raised abroad and provides a perfect example of the folly of granting birthright citizenship. It seems to me that if an American citizen joins America's enemies in carrying out hostile acts against our country, that is, tries to kill us, we should be able to take it for granted that he or she is renouncing his or her American citizenship. We used to call such people traitors and hang them.

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.

[Oldpuppymax]

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.