Posted on 05/21/2024 1:52:19 PM PDT by JSM_Liberty
As of 05/21/2024 text has not been received for H.R.8445 - To amend title 38, United States Code, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for the eligibility of United States citizens who serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for certain protections relating to such service.
Nope, WOULD VOTE NO.
You fight for another Country, you should not get US benifets.
People on this posting have no f'ing clue what they are talking about. The Sertviceman's Civil Relief Act does NOT provide VA benefits nor automatically convey veterans' status to anyone. Nor does it permit someone to use VA facilities. It is exactly what it says: "civil relief."
In the 1980s, I was on active duty during a nasty divorce. This is nothing new; the exception to the rule was servicemen who had not divorced at least once. The difference was that I had custody of the children. While I was overseas, my ex-wife initiated a custody fight. No judge would take the case because I was stationed overseas and protected by the Serviceman's Civil Relief Act." It applies to evictions, bankruptcy, etc.
Honestly, take the time to review the Act before you go off. That said, while I appreciate the gesture, I am not sure I agree with this change to the Act. An American citizen working as a contractor for the DOD overseas is not protected under the Act. I know of an instance where civil action was initiated against a contractor working for the DOD overseas. He had to return home to address the issues, it cost him a lucrative job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicemembers_Civil_Relief_Act
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (formerly called the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940) (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 3901—4043) is a United States federal law that protects soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen, and commissioned officers in the Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from being sued while in active military service of their country and for up to a year after active duty, as well as U.S. citizens serving with allied military forces for the duration of a military conflict involving the United States.
So all the people who served in the Lafayette Escadrille in WWI; the RAF’s Eagle Squadron and the American Volunteer Group (the Flying Tigers) in WWII should lose their citizenship?
Free men are free to fight for causes they believe in. The only exception is those who take up arms for an enemy against our country like some German-American Bundists during WWII and Islamists who joined ISIS or Al Queda.
I agree with you, no reason to provide legal protection to some one who chooses to fight for a foreign country.
They are free to volunteer, but they must accept consequences, even indirect ones, that stem from that choice.
My only exception would be for Americans who are unwillingly conscripted, which may occur when another country considers them their citizen. Particularly for foreign countries that do not permit renunciation of citizenship.
As I said, it is a civil relief act; it has nothing to do with the VA, veteran benefits, or veteran status. I am familiar with Title 50 USC 3902-4043; I read the actual act, not the Wikipedia synopsis. I would not recommend that for everyone unless you are familiar with USC and its structure and language.
This does not apply to Israelis holding dual citizenship; they can serve in the Israeli military and not lose US Citizenship. There are some gray areas. You can lose your citizenship under certain conditions, even if the military is an ally of the United States.
Yes, because if you join the military of another country, you take an oath of allegiance to that country. I have no problem with mercenaries going a fighting.
That is the purpose of this move. Trumps’ supporters have part which want a ruthless, America first and America only outlook (Myself included, just to put cards on the table.)
But Trump is also trying to peel Jews from the Democrat Party. Biden has stepped in it lately with the Jews, and they were beginning to migrate to Trump, so these Uniparty, Never-Trump Republicans pull this, and now if Trump says a single word, either way, he will split his support, one way or another.
I doubt this will ever pass, as it would set a horrible precedent, especially since our politicians are not elected by us now, and our government is just a big scam to tell everyone to give their money to the Uniparty, so it can embezzle trillions for the conspiracy. But in the meantime, it causes havoc within the big tent Trump is trying to amass.
I take this as a good sign the right people are opposed to Trump, and it is a good chance he represents something beneficial.
The text isn't available yet however this applies only to issues like suspending mortage and credit card debt, not giving VA benefits for service in a foreign army. Which is perfectly legal.
As to dual citizenship this applies to over 60 countries, mostly in Europe and Latin America, including Cuba. It is entirely dependent on the losing country. I suppose we could amend the Constitution though that would prevent immigrants from those countries from becoming legal citizens. Lots of countries in the mideast, Israel excepted, and Asia we could encourage legal immigration from. Renouncing citizenship is also a function of the laws of the losing country, not the US, and difficult to impossible in some cases. Like Cuba and Argentina. Others it's difficult. An Israeli can renounce his citizenship for 6 months prior to his/her 18th birthday or after age 29, women 28, doctors 38. Between then without renouncing you can't visit Israel without completing military service. Other countries have different restrictions.
I don’t agree with this either. Service in ANY foreign government’s military should not qualify them for US VA benefits or otherwise credit.
It doesn’t
1. i would permit such service but grant no benefit from it as to any U.S. interest, military or otherwise. I would take a different position if the U.S. military was engaged with Israel in their defense.
2. I oppose “dual citizenship” and wish the SCOTUS had not allowed it. It smacks against the true idea of citizenship itself - allegience to ONE sovereign/state. To think it can officially be divided is to diminish it.
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.