Posted on 01/13/2012 3:55:51 PM PST by grundle
Full title: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction
First, Congress considered the National Defense Authorization Act, sections of which gave the President the authority to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans without trial or charge. The language was revised because of strong condemnation from the American people. But now a new bill has emerged that poses yet another threat to the American citizenry.
Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.
The new law would change a part of US Code 1481 which can be read in full here. Compare 3166 to 1481 and the change is small. The new section makes no reference to being convicted as it does in section (7). So even though the language of the NDAA has been revised to exclude American citizens, the US government merely has to strip Americans of their citizenship and the NDAA will apply. And they will be able to do so without convicting the accused in a court of law.
I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial. This certainly must be questioned by American citizens. The way these defense obsessed Republicans think, our rights are always in danger of being taken away.
To read the full text of the bill, go here.
Can we start with the bamster, Pilosi, Reid and Soros?
Revelation 13:7
New International Version (NIV)
7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.
Costa Rica is looking pretty good. I have some friends who are already there.
New Zealand is also looking pretty good, but they may be just a tad too socialist and it is a little difficult to get residency.
The thing is, the process of revoking US citizenship is a very long and difficult one where the State Department has to prove that the Citizen intended to revoke his citizenship, since they are bound by SCOTUS rulings that state it is unconstitutional to take your citizenship against your will. And citizens have the right to due process in various forms including contesting the revoking of citizenship in a Court of Law where it would have to be proven that intent to revoke citizenship was made. Congress had wars with the USSC over removing citizenships when they tried to do it,I think during and after WWII. That resulted in a compromise which has made it very hard to take citizenships; a US citizen losing citizenship is extremely rare. While I do not agree with having a series of broad, vague anti terror laws passed in succession and have concerns of my own, I have not seen any shred of evidence that the EEA tampers with due process in anyway in removing citizenships. . It only adds an eight condition to the existing 7, and of those 7, only the 7th specifically states “if and when convicted” but the other 6 still have plenty of due process if you’re accused. And again, I see zero proof that there wouldnt be due process with the 8th one. Of course, I would love to see the term hostilities as applied to the laws of war clearly defined. Hostilities has never before referred to people protesting, but ensuring it never does would of course be very nice.
The law is about naturalized citizens and not natural born citizens. Only those granted a citizenship are affected.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Note that only the 7th section specifically states “if and when he is convicted”. Hence, many people think that if this law was interpreted by itself, and could exist by itself, the govt could in theory accuse political opponents and others of any of the actions 1-6 and take citizenships at will since it could easily be argued that a conviction is not required for those sections. But that hasnt happened, and there are numerous reasons, including the requirement of proof that an American intended to give up citizenship. Hence the key words “intention of relinquishing United States nationality”
Thanks for pointing that out. I was also pointing out an argument that goes along with what you were saying and pointing out how, for even those whom the law does apply to, it does not eliminate due process. So I do agree with you that this law should not necessarily be seen as a sort of move towards Nazi Germany or Maoist China. The law would allow someone to lose citizenship under sections 1-6 or 8-but ONLY if they actively decided not to invoke their due process.
It applies to native-born and naturalized citizens.
I quote from the amended act, Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), above.
Someone who commits a listed act can have their citizenship revoked by “a preponderance of the evidence” that they performed the act with the intent to revoke their citizenship.
A difficult standard of proof in this case, but lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases.
There is little to no difference between the parties on this treason.
I also note, this is basically the same thing as the Terrorist Expatriation Act introduced by Lieberman in 2010:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_summary.pdf
which means the TEA and EEA clearly werent designed specifically to cioncide with NDAA 2012. Incidentally, Lieberman’s bill still hasnt made it past the Congressional Committee and the EEA, which was introduced in Oct last year, hasnt made it past committee either. They could try to tack it onto NDAA, but since it ammends statute 1481, I am not sure how that would work.
“the intent to revoke their citizenship.”
When someone states that they are acting as an enemy of the US, claims new citizenship elsewhere, and performs an act of war against the US, then that person could, and should, have their citizenship revoked.
The idea that a person simply can have their citizenship revoked for an illegal act is what has been presented here but that is not true.
“A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, “
Well, I stand corrected. However, the new law, as others already have pointed out, adds onyl an 8th element a person may voluntarily do to earn their citizenship being revoked and that is “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.”
As others have already pointed out, Obama cannot simply declare a person to have done any item 1-8 and strip a citizenship. The courts have already said what process must be followed before that can happen and it is a long process.
Well, once they sneak a SOPA clone through in the dead of night, for secret signing by the prez, you won’t even know about expatriation and indefinite detention any more. There will only be Happy news.
Ignorance is bliss.
For awhile.
Until they drag you away.
You can already lose your citizenship for treason, so why is this even necessary?
Because treason is narrowly defined, while terrorism can now apply to nearly everything. They prosecuted one poor soul as a “terrorist” because he was minting gold coins. How that is terrorism is beyond me. If they claim it is because he was debasing the currency, the Fed and Goldman-Sachs should have been in jail long before him
You are correct. You and me were born as Americans...We cannot be stripped of citizenship. An immigrant who becomes a naturalized US citizen can be stripped of citizenship if he commits certain crimes. Laws for this have been on the books for years. Long before Jug Ears was born
Do you have any examples of a native born American citizen being stripped of citizenship? I suppose there are laws that he can be if he fights for a foreign nation nation against the USA. But are there any examples? The common situation is an immigrant being stripped of the US citizenship he attained when he commits certain crimes
One since ‘Afroyim v. Rusk’ (When the court suddenly found congress lost the power to expatriate with the passage of the 14th Amendment).
Until then it was an accepted power of congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas
“Laurence J. Terrazas, was born in this country, the son of a Mexican citizen. He thus acquired at birth both United States and Mexican citizenship. In the fall of 1970, while a student in Monterrey, Mexico, and at the age of 22, appellee executed an application for a certificate of Mexican nationality...”
Don’t know the mother’s nationality.
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.