Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:39 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,454
Can Sovereign Citizens be deported or interned?

If a Sovereign Citizen insists that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, but rather a sovereign entity, and the courts take him or her at his or her word, can he or she be deported or interned?
  #2  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:44 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,054
I don't see how the courts could "take them at their word" and not acknowledge their entire claim-Sample the madness here.
  #3  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:47 AM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,018
In order to be deported, you've have to have a place to deport them to. Countries are obligated to take in their own citizens, so if you deport a person who is a citizen of Mexico to Mexico, Mexico has to take them. But Mexico doesn't have to take citizens of other countries. So we can't deport Russians to Mexico.

So....you want to deport a sovereign citizen. Before you can do that, there has to be a country willing to take them. And good luck with that.

As for stripping them of their American citizenship, that can't happen unless they have another citizenship, even if the person wants to lose their American citizenship. It is against public policy to allow a person to become stateless.
  #4  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:48 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 20,334
Where could they be expelled to that wouldn't also have the same problem? Some sort of Heinlein-esque coventry where no law or government pertains? I'm unaware of anyplace that fits the description.
  #5  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:57 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,454
Hence the 'or' in the question.
  #6  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:59 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 37,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Where could they be expelled to that wouldn't also have the same problem? Some sort of Heinlein-esque coventry where no law or government pertains? I'm unaware of anyplace that fits the description.
Perhaps Marie Byrd Land in Antarctica, which has not been formally claimed by any sovereign nation. Just the place for rugged individualists.

Or maybe international waters, like Philip Nolan, The Man Without a Country, who was sentenced to spend his life at sea, perpetually being transferred from ship to ship.

This is mostly a joke, of course. There would of course be legal and practical problems with either course.

Last edited by Colibri; 03-20-2017 at 11:59 AM.
  #7  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:00 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,469
Strictly speaking ... it's not a crime to say that we're Sovereign Citizens ... however, the OP specifies that we're in a court of law so if we assume there's been a violation of the law ... and the law allows those convicted to be interned ... then of course the court can "take their word for it" and promptly throw the individual in prison ...

We're entitled to scream "tyranny" ... but we still have to pay taxes ...
  #8  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:31 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
Ex falsum quodlibet, or Anything You Want

Or, in less Elizabethan verbiage, once you accept the idea of a sovereign citizen into your legal system, your system explodes. Any corporation worth its salt would take advantage of it, creating a flurry, nay, a blizzard of sovereign entities with no obligation to not crash through your walls in the pursuit of pizza delivery. It would be like introducing any other nonsensical premise into a supposedly self-consistent system: It would, virus-like, alter all of the underlying assumptions, infecting the meanings until the center collapsed under the weight of every term becoming nonsensical.

Because it is nonsense. It proposes no coherent system to replace any of this with. The supposed philosophy is smoke and mirrors bafflegab meant to, first, fool the rubes who buy kits from gurus and, second, give the rubes something to say to authority figures while they lose everything due to the underlying problems which made them buy a kit in the first place.
  #9  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:02 PM
dofe dofe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Ex falsum quodlibet, or Anything You Want

Or, in less Elizabethan verbiage, once you accept the idea of a sovereign citizen into your legal system, your system explodes. Any corporation worth its salt would take advantage of it, creating a flurry, nay, a blizzard of sovereign entities with no obligation to not crash through your walls in the pursuit of pizza delivery. It would be like introducing any other nonsensical premise into a supposedly self-consistent system: It would, virus-like, alter all of the underlying assumptions, infecting the meanings until the center collapsed under the weight of every term becoming nonsensical.

Because it is nonsense. It proposes no coherent system to replace any of this with. The supposed philosophy is smoke and mirrors bafflegab meant to, first, fool the rubes who buy kits from gurus and, second, give the rubes something to say to authority figures while they lose everything due to the underlying problems which made them buy a kit in the first place.
I once dealt with a pro se sovereign citizen litigant -- her brief was, as expected, full of citations to the Constitution and the UCC, even though it was clear she didn't really understand the language she was quoting. Her brief also cited to case law and quoted opinions out of context. If any court does what the OP proposes and accepts the suggestion that sovereign citizenship is even a valid concept, you're automatically going to end up with more SC nutcases at your doorstep -- and now they'll have a legit judicial authority to point to.
  #10  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:10 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,129
Agree with Derleth. The cure is far worse than the disease.

Although it does sound fun for the US to cordon off some section of current Federal land and declare it an enclave of government-free land. And then they can "deport" anyone claiming SC status directly to there in lieu of adjudicating their actual legal issue.

As a former Las Vegas resident I propose the section of Nevada formerly known as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site. It's not like we're going to use the land for any other good purpose any time soon. And it has plenty of room vs. the expected number of deportees times their life expectancy in that waterless wilderness.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 03-20-2017 at 01:11 PM.
  #11  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:18 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 38,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
If a Sovereign Citizen insists that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, but rather a sovereign entity, and the courts take him or her at his or her word, can he or she be deported or interned?
Taking them at their word is basically throwing out the rule of law.
  #12  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:20 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,054
There's always Detroit.
  #13  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:38 PM
Count Blucher Count Blucher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near Baroni&Kelly's Jail.
Posts: 13,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
If a Sovereign Citizen insists that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, but rather a sovereign entity, and the courts take him or her at his or her word, can he or she be deported or interned?
Wouldn't they just have to be executed?
No lawyer, no trial. All their Cattle bolt gunned dead in the fields... and the fields then salted.
  #14  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:52 PM
silenus silenus is offline
The Turtle Moves!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48,450
Relevant thread from 11 years ago. I wasn't thinking of SovCits, but the same disposition.

Short answer: No.
  #15  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:55 PM
snowthx snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 2,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Where could they be expelled to that wouldn't also have the same problem? Some sort of Heinlein-esque coventry where no law or government pertains? I'm unaware of anyplace that fits the description.
Guantanamo Bay?
  #16  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:01 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Taking them at their word is basically throwing out the rule of law.
To amplify, let's say a disturbed individual runs into a police station and says: "I did it! I did it! I murdered my wife Sally, and stop me before I kill again!"

The police investigate and find that his wife Sally is actually a can of Del Monte green beans that was thrown into a wood chipper, with malice aforethought.

Should the justice system "take him at his word" that he murdered his "wife" and we should imprison him, even though the fact is indisputable that he committed no crime against a person?

Seems to me that pretending that the can of green beans was a person is roughly equivalent to pretending that someone born and living in this country isn't a US person. In both cases, a ludicrously wrong assertion that totally undermines the law.
  #17  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:04 PM
boffking boffking is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Where could they be expelled to that wouldn't also have the same problem? Some sort of Heinlein-esque coventry where no law or government pertains? I'm unaware of anyplace that fits the description.
Perhaps Bir Tawil?
  #18  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:24 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,189
We interned American citizens during WWII. So we can certainly intern "Sovereign Citizens" if we don't take them at their word can consider them to be US citizens. As for deporting them, I think we'd be stepping on dangerous ground if we did allow for such revocation of citizenship. Too easy to revoke someone's citizenship non-voluntarily. And where would we deport them too anyway?
  #19  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:40 PM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 15,757
Here is Unca Cecil's take on giving up US citizenship possibly with a twist of staying in the country that has some useful info.

Two issues:

1. Could a US court "assist" an individual in properly giving up their US citizenship in some way? Not technically deported but given a helping hand to leave and then assisted with having the proper forms filled out at a US embassy.

2. The 2nd part of the column covers an alleged way to give up US citizenship but returning to the US right away and becoming some kind of in-between citizen. Could a US court assist in some way this happening with the person's consent? And once the person has such status would they be deportable?

Note that un-giving up US citizenship is remarkably easy (assuming you didn't take up arms against the US or some such).

The focus of my questions being turning the phony declaration of non-citizen into the real thing.
  #20  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:32 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by czarcasm View Post
there's always detroit.
no!! Not detroit!!
  #21  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:50 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
I thought about mentioning something regarding giving up your citizenship in my post, but I decided against it because SCs don't do that. Nothing in their theory pushes them to do it. Tying their ramblings to the perfectly rational, factual process of renunciation of a citizenship is imputing more meaning to those ramblings than they're ever going to have on their own.

The cannier SCs know they don't want to not be American citizens. They like being citizens of a First-World country with all of the privileges, legal and economic, which go along with that. They just want to slide themselves into a category where they can have all those privileges without the (frankly minimal) obligations American citizenship entails. Which was a point I made in my previous post: If being a Sovereign Citizen became legally possible, it would be the ultimate dodge for every corporation to engage in, so they'd be irresponsible not to, if you accept the premise that a corporation's goal is maximization of shareholder value.

On the other hand, it would be downright hilarious to watch the Sov-runs' faces were a judge to tell them that their latest piece of nonsensical paperwork just renounced their citizenship and they were therefore due to be deported to the cholera belt.
  #22  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:12 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 11,181
Let us imagine that we allowed someone to declare themselves sovereign citizens. They would be giving up all legal protections. Anyone could rob them, kill them, burn down their property (indeed they could have no legally recognized property) without any fear of legal sanction. How long would such a person survive? And if somehow, he did, what would his life be like, knowing that anyone could stick a knife in his back and steal everything he has (but doesn't own) with total impunity.
  #23  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:47 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
If a Sovereign Citizen insists that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, but rather a sovereign entity, and the courts take him or her at his or her word, can he or she be deported or interned?
Courts rule based on the law. Sovereign Citizens have the same legal protections as everyone else just as they are subject to the same legal punishments as everyone else. The law applies to them, even if they don't accept the validity of that law.
  #24  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:43 AM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Let us imagine that we allowed someone to declare themselves sovereign citizens. They would be giving up all legal protections. Anyone could rob them, kill them, burn down their property (indeed they could have no legally recognized property) without any fear of legal sanction. How long would such a person survive? And if somehow, he did, what would his life be like, knowing that anyone could stick a knife in his back and steal everything he has (but doesn't own) with total impunity.
First: That isn't what SCs believe. They think they can still get all the benefits of living in a society of laws, even if they, themselves, have opted out of most of those laws. They bang on about the UCC and, depending on the specific brand of crazy, divine law or common law or something else. They want laws to protect them, just not laws that inconvenience them in any fashion.

Second: You almost hit on why modern societies don't do the "outlaw" thing anymore. We really don't want vigilantism, either from people who hunt outlaws or from outlaws who have to resort to banditry and violence to survive. That kind of stuff destabilizes a society. It's inherently bad if you want to run a civilization, as opposed to feuding petty tribal chieftains like Western Europe circa 500 CE.

The only thing you can do with SC babble is ignore it as word-noise and move on with the real legal process.
  #25  
Old 03-21-2017, 03:09 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 4,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Or, in less Elizabethan verbiage, once you accept the idea of a sovereign citizen into your legal system, your system explodes. Any corporation worth its salt would take advantage of it, creating a flurry, nay, a blizzard of sovereign entities with no obligation to not crash through your walls in the pursuit of pizza delivery. It would be like introducing any other nonsensical premise into a supposedly self-consistent system: It would, virus-like, alter all of the underlying assumptions, infecting the meanings until the center collapsed under the weight of every term becoming nonsensical.
You could Limit it to natural persons to stop corporations from using that loophole.
  #26  
Old 03-21-2017, 03:13 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 4,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
First: That isn't what SCs believe. They think they can still get all the benefits of living in a society of laws, even if they, themselves, have opted out of most of those laws. They bang on about the UCC and, depending on the specific brand of crazy, divine law or common law or something else. They want laws to protect them, just not laws that inconvenience them in any fashion.
Which Shows where the Problem is: they don't think this through. It's crazy rambling, and they Need help. But interning them in a mental Hospital (Aside from the severe lack of them) runs quickly into the Problem of abuse (in the USSR, dissenters often ended up in mental hospitals because "obviously" opposing the perfect System meant they were insane; and less pressure from ai and UN), and that it's forbidden to put People there against their will. But part of their delusion is lack of awareness that they are delusional. It's a catch-22.

I wonder: would it be possible to write a Video game to simulate an empty Stretch of land, and let a score of SCs battle it out, so they can see how "no laws to restrict us" would look like? Would that pierce their Fantasy about coming out on top as Rambo, instead of getting shot in the back after half an hour?
  #27  
Old 03-21-2017, 03:15 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
You could Limit it to natural persons to stop corporations from using that loophole.
And in what possible way is that better than not pandering to the insanity at all?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 03-21-2017 at 03:15 PM.
  #28  
Old 03-21-2017, 04:08 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
You could Limit it to natural persons to stop corporations from using that loophole.
You could, but then every single corporate officer could become an SC and you have essentially the same problem.

Besides, if you allow SCs at all, they can say that in their special UCC, they can create a corporation which is an SC; that would actually be marginally less insane than what they usually try to use the UCC for, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
Which Shows where the Problem is: they don't think this through. It's crazy rambling, and they Need help. But interning them in a mental Hospital (Aside from the severe lack of them) runs quickly into the Problem of abuse (in the USSR, dissenters often ended up in mental hospitals because "obviously" opposing the perfect System meant they were insane; and less pressure from ai and UN), and that it's forbidden to put People there against their will. But part of their delusion is lack of awareness that they are delusional. It's a catch-22.
Desperation and cognitive dissonance aren't insanity. Thinking you're smarter than you really are and being an insufferable jackass about it isn't insanity. Joining what amounts to a religious movement based around pseudo-history and pseudo-law isn't insanity, either. I'm sure some of the SCs are legitimately insane, but you can explain their behavior even if they aren't.

Perhaps more cynically, we don't need to diagnose them with "sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia" (a fake diagnosis the USSR gave to dissidents) to keep them locked up. They do that to themselves by acting on their beliefs.

Quote:
I wonder: would it be possible to write a Video game to simulate an empty Stretch of land, and let a score of SCs battle it out, so they can see how "no laws to restrict us" would look like? Would that pierce their Fantasy about coming out on top as Rambo, instead of getting shot in the back after half an hour?
That would be hilarious to watch: "Spawn camping infringes on my rights as a natural born human being to rek n00bs and git gud!" "I do not consent to this rocket up my rectum! I DO NOT CONSENT!"
  #29  
Old 03-21-2017, 04:26 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
I thought about mentioning something regarding giving up your citizenship in my post, but I decided against it because SCs don't do that. Nothing in their theory pushes them to do it. Tying their ramblings to the perfectly rational, factual process of renunciation of a citizenship is imputing more meaning to those ramblings than they're ever going to have on their own.

The cannier SCs know they don't want to not be American citizens. They like being citizens of a First-World country with all of the privileges, legal and economic, which go along with that. They just want to slide themselves into a category where they can have all those privileges without the (frankly minimal) obligations American citizenship entails. Which was a point I made in my previous post: If being a Sovereign Citizen became legally possible, it would be the ultimate dodge for every corporation to engage in, so they'd be irresponsible not to, if you accept the premise that a corporation's goal is maximization of shareholder value.

On the other hand, it would be downright hilarious to watch the Sov-runs' faces were a judge to tell them that their latest piece of nonsensical paperwork just renounced their citizenship and they were therefore due to be deported to the cholera belt.
Can't say that much about all SC's, but I remember my brother crowing and bragging about some piece of paper that he had that he had "filed" at the county clerks office that meant that he was no longer a citizen of the United States of America. He was still a citizen of the State, but not of the federal government.

But, in any case, I am pretty sure that their legal mumbo-jumbo does involve revoking federal citizenship. (Not that you can actually do that.)

To be fair, I am no expert on these idiots, just because my brother is one. I really didn't listen to his ramblings too closely, I was mostly tasked with engaging him at family events so he didn't bother others and ruin their time, and in any case I have only spoken with him once in this last decade.
  #30  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:05 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Can't say that much about all SC's, but I remember my brother crowing and bragging about some piece of paper that he had that he had "filed" at the county clerks office that meant that he was no longer a citizen of the United States of America. He was still a citizen of the State, but not of the federal government.
That's SC nonsense. You can tell because it's legally incoherent, in addition to being bizarre in smaller ways: Like, you can completely redefine your relationship to the Federal government at a county clerk's office?

Quote:
But, in any case, I am pretty sure that their legal mumbo-jumbo does involve revoking federal citizenship. (Not that you can actually do that.)
Yeah, a lot of them want to revoke Federal citizenship but keep state citizenship, as your brother does, or they try to draw a distinction between 14th Amendment citizens and actual citizens, which is incoherent because the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens, and at that point it's impossible to ignore the racist underpinnings of their nonsense: The 14th Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, most specifically the one which ensured former slaves would be considered citizens on a par with White people, so being opposed to that isn't even subtly racist.

Anyway. They want to do a few things. None of them fully match up with the real process of renouncing your citizenship, because that process makes logical sense, which none of their beliefs do.
  #31  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
That's SC nonsense. You can tell because it's legally incoherent, in addition to being bizarre in smaller ways: Like, you can completely redefine your relationship to the Federal government at a county clerk's office?
Something about counties being the only real seat of power that a sovereign citizen recognizes. Like I said,m he was quite proud that he got this paperwork filed.

My reaction was less impressed. I was pretty sure that you couldn't do that, and if you could, well, that's a terrible idea.

He thought he could get away with not paying taxes or child support. Gave his ex a "voucher" to to take the child support money out of his gold account at fort knox.

Obviously, that didn't go too well, and he seemed surprised at spending a bit of time in jail for non-payment, even after the judge gave him every chance to make things right. I suppose there was gold fringe on the flag, or something.
Quote:
Yeah, a lot of them want to revoke Federal citizenship but keep state citizenship, as your brother does, or they try to draw a distinction between 14th Amendment citizens and actual citizens, which is incoherent because the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens, and at that point it's impossible to ignore the racist underpinnings of their nonsense: The 14th Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, most specifically the one which ensured former slaves would be considered citizens on a par with White people, so being opposed to that isn't even subtly racist.

Anyway. They want to do a few things. None of them fully match up with the real process of renouncing your citizenship, because that process makes logical sense, which none of their beliefs do.
Not defending it at all, just offering what I know from an aghast bystander's perspective. I think it is one of the stupidest things ever.

I once mentioned to him that technically income taxes shouldn't be legal, as the amendment that made them legal was passed under taft, who was born in ohio, which was technically not a state at the time. I meant this fairly jokingly, as there are alot of reasons that that statement is not really all that true. But, within the same conversation, he used this piece of trivia that I had told him to try to convince me that taxes were unconstitutional. This is the mentality of a SC, grasp onto any sort of technicality they can find, and extrapolate it into what they want.

My offer to sovereign citizens is a one way trip out to international waters, and if the ask very nicely, we'll give them a raft too.

They decide they want to come back and live by our rules, I have no problem with that, but I'd make them take the citizenship test that we give to any other naturalizing citizen.
  #32  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:21 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 21,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Perhaps [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Byrd_Land"]Or maybe international waters, like Philip Nolan, The Man Without a Country, who was sentenced to spend his life at sea, perpetually being transferred from ship to ship.
Nolan was incarcerated on US Navy ships in that story.
  #33  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:26 PM
Barbarian Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: is french for rental
Posts: 5,487
I simply tell Sovereign Citizens that if they really want to live the lifestyle they espouse, they should move to one of those countries where everyone agrees with them. Like Venezuela. Or Afghanistan.
  #34  
Old 03-21-2017, 08:07 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,129
Somalia is my go-to choice for all manner of Libertarians. Each resident there gets exactly as much liberty as they can successfully defend and pays exactly as much taxes as they can't successfully defend against.

Truly Libertarian nirvana that place is.
  #35  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:01 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 21,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
I simply tell Sovereign Citizens that if they really want to live the lifestyle they espouse, they should move to one of those countries where everyone agrees with them. Like Venezuela. Or Afghanistan.
This also has the advantage of putting said SCs somewhere they can actually renounce US citizenship.
  #36  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:51 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
This also has the advantage of putting said SCs somewhere they can actually renounce US citizenship.
From the State Department's website:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481)
A person who is a national of the United States whether, by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality:

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense.
Given the context, it seems obvious that (6) means you can renounce your citizenship within America if you do it in writing if we're at war. Odd little quirk.

Last edited by Derleth; 03-21-2017 at 10:53 PM.
  #37  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:33 PM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by boffking View Post
Perhaps Bir Tawil?
I was going to suggest this.

1) deport them to Bir Tawil
2) Build a wall around the entire triangle
3) Ultimate Reality TV Survivor Show !
4) Profit !
  #38  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:39 PM
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 11,649
Libya would be good.
  #39  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:56 PM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 37,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Nolan was incarcerated on US Navy ships in that story.
I know. What's your point?

I gave it as an example of how someone could be exiled to international waters. It wouldn't need to be on US ships.

And I made it clear I was mostly jesting.
  #40  
Old 03-22-2017, 12:46 AM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Somalia is my go-to choice for all manner of Libertarians. Each resident there gets exactly as much liberty as they can successfully defend and pays exactly as much taxes as they can't successfully defend against.

Truly Libertarian nirvana that place is.
Since 2012 that's not really true. Somalia has a government of sorts now, certain pockets are held by Islamist insurgents but it's by no means a free for all with no central government like it used to be from 1991-2006.
  #41  
Old 03-22-2017, 01:12 AM
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 11,649
Niven's notion of "anarchy parks" might do the trick. Large walled compounds (ten or twenty sections) where the candidates can go in and try to survive without rules. It would almost certainly end up being more trouble than it is worth, but somebody would learn something. I am just not sure who.
  #42  
Old 03-22-2017, 01:17 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Niven's notion of "anarchy parks" might do the trick. Large walled compounds (ten or twenty sections) where the candidates can go in and try to survive without rules. It would almost certainly end up being more trouble than it is worth, but somebody would learn something. I am just not sure who.
Niven's parks all had robots that patrolled everywhere and stunned anyone into unconsciousness if they attempted any violence against another person. The plot of the story was somebody figured out a way to deactivate all the robots and the park became a true anarchy, which broke down into a dystopia in a matter of hours.
  #43  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:32 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,129
See http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml
  #44  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:07 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 21,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
I know. What's your point?

I gave it as an example of how someone could be exiled to international waters. It wouldn't need to be on US ships.

And I made it clear I was mostly jesting.
Oh, I know you were jesting. That story is one of my favorites, mostly because of the detention being on a navy vessel and therefore being treated as US territory--At least in a lot of fiction I read. Funny thing is there was no need to put Nolan on a ship to accomplish the judge's wish. Simply put him in a prison and give orders to the staff not to mention the United States to him. One would think it impossible to carry out the judge's order on a naval vessel. The story is still a mighty good piece of writing. And, unlike the "sovereign citizens"' nonsense, has a coherent internal logic.

Hey, maybe those nutters can all be persuaded to relocate to the Principality of Sealand and take over from the current regime. There's even precedence right in Sealand for it.
  #45  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:39 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 37,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Oh, I know you were jesting. That story is one of my favorites, mostly because of the detention being on a navy vessel and therefore being treated as US territory--At least in a lot of fiction I read. Funny thing is there was no need to put Nolan on a ship to accomplish the judge's wish. Simply put him in a prison and give orders to the staff not to mention the United States to him. One would think it impossible to carry out the judge's order on a naval vessel. The story is still a mighty good piece of writing. And, unlike the "sovereign citizens"' nonsense, has a coherent internal logic.
Of course Hale's intent was to highlight Nolan's physical isolation from the United States, not just that he would never hear of it.

As a practical matter, of course, this wouldn't work for what the OP asks, since vessels in international waters are normally under the jurisdiction of whatever country they are registered in. You would need to put them on an unregistered vessel - perhaps pay Somali pirates to cruise around the Indian Ocean with them. Seems like more trouble than it's worth.

Last edited by Colibri; 03-22-2017 at 11:40 AM.
  #46  
Old 03-23-2017, 03:24 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 21,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Of course Hale's intent was to highlight Nolan's physical isolation from the United States, not just that he would never hear of it.
Yep.

Quote:
As a practical matter, of course, this wouldn't work for what the OP asks, since vessels in international waters are normally under the jurisdiction of whatever country they are registered in.
And in Hales' story, the ships weren't just civilian things; they were US Navy warships.

Quote:
You would need to put them on an unregistered vessel - perhaps pay Somali pirates to cruise around the Indian Ocean with them. Seems like more trouble than it's worth.
I don't know. With these "sovcits"/"freedmen on the land"/and other assorted delusionals, I'm starting to think it might well be worth it!
  #47  
Old 03-28-2017, 03:15 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 4,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Desperation and cognitive dissonance aren't insanity. Thinking you're smarter than you really are and being an insufferable jackass about it isn't insanity. Joining what amounts to a religious movement based around pseudo-history and pseudo-law isn't insanity, either. I'm sure some of the SCs are legitimately insane, but you can explain their behavior even if they aren't.

Perhaps more cynically, we don't need to diagnose them with "sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia" (a fake diagnosis the USSR gave to dissidents) to keep them locked up. They do that to themselves by acting on their beliefs.
I see (from the outside) a large overlap between preppers, SCs, fundie evangelicals, and generally conspiracies/ secret knowledge believers that makes both themselves miserable and dangerous to Society:

- they believe only a few Chosen News / Gurus, everybody else is sheeple, or part of the conspiracy. This makes them exploitable as army for the Gurus/ authoriatarian leaders; we see how much Money they pull in.

- it makes them live not only in smugness at having secret knowledge, but also in fear that the govt. oppresses them / the apocaplyse Comes / whatever their leader is telling them. This misery plus fear makes them obey the leaders but is not good.

So that's why Society has an interest in keeping These People from becoming a danger; and Society has a humane interest in treating them to get rid of their misery and fear and just live normal lifes.
  #48  
Old 03-30-2017, 06:58 PM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,292
What about just remanding the SovCit to a mental health facility for evaluation?
  #49  
Old 03-30-2017, 07:22 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
What about just remanding the SovCit to a mental health facility for evaluation?
Most of the time, the facility would wonder why you were sending them a non-compilant asshole with no real complaint. (I mean, no medical complaint. They'd have plenty of complaints of the form "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND" and "I AM THE LIVING SOIL" and "YOUR LAMP HAS ADMIRALTY FRINGE" and "I AM GOOD AT INTERRUPTING" and so on.) However, as I said, being a loud asshole with the legal comprehension of a slightly damp sponge is not a medical problem and trying to medicalize it would do more harm than good.

(I'm sure some SCs are mentally ill. That means they have a history of mental illness, something orthogonal to their SC beliefs.)

The only way to handle them is to, one, develop very strict laws about dealing with paper terrorism (filing false liens as a method of harassment) and, two, enforce all laws and rules of process against them strictly to ensure they can't abuse the system or even delay the legal processes against them. Even if they refuse to acknowledge civilization, civilization is still obliged to acknowledge them, so it should do so in the most expeditious way possible.
  #50  
Old 03-30-2017, 09:16 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,218
I say that we pay Chad (the country, not the douche) $1B per year and anyone claiming to be a SC (or variation such as FoTL, Article 4 traveller, etc.) in open court has hereby given up their US citizenship, becomes a Chadian citizen and is immediately deported.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017