Can an American citizen have his/her travel privileges reviewed?

If they haven’t committed a crime or are not suspected of one? Here’s the story.

As a law-abiding (I’ve heard nothing to the contrary) American citizen of long-standing how is it possible that the government could ‘review his travel privileges’? Isn’t unrestricted travel a right rather than a privilege in the US? This smacks of Russia and other authoritarian states. I need a little enlightenment on US law here (I’m English.)

The statement issued by the agency doesn’t really make much sense, and Mr. Khan appears to have chosen not to clarify it:

Passports are a privilege rather than a right, but even then they aren’t “reviewed” like that.

Pretty sure after September 11th along with the ‘War on Terror’, Western government have exclusive power to revoke passports at anytime.

I’m sure you know that the UK has now taken measures to prevent individuals from leaving the country permanently by refusing them passports. Even white Britons convicted of terrorism can be made stateless.

So…I don’t really think it’s in the range of impossibility that the State Department can do anything to prevent travel

They’ve always had that power. It’s inherent in the nature of a passport.

Denaturalisationis also an option, one I am absolutely certain Donald Trump might want to use against him.

The US revoked passports in the McCarthy era. The current position in the UK appears to be:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-issuing-withdrawal-or-refusal-of-passports

So, to US Lawyer Dopers, what exactly might be legally done or considered to be done to Khizar Khan that he might want to avoid travelling.

Cancel Passport? Denaturalisation? All expenses paid trip to Gitmo?

Denaturalization is only available in cases of immigration fraud or certain corner cases like a dishonorable discharge from the military. It can’t be done by executive order, and requires going through a civil process in a federal district court with a rather strong burden of proof.

Cite? Since stateless persons are a result disfavored in international law, I’m interested about the UK law that produces this result. I’m no expert on UK law.

I’m not aware aware of any provision of law the State Department (22 US Code § 211a) can invoke to prevent travel for a given individual who is not charged with (or convicted of) a crime, alleged to have permitted his passport to be altered or misused, or alleged to be in arrears in child support payments. See 22 CFR § 51.60 et seq.

This being General Questions, the home of factual answers, can you explain with reference to any law or code what specific provisions of the law inform your conclusion?

Here is aNY Times Article

The relevant Statute isSs 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Specifically

It depends – even a naturalization of thirty years’ standing may be revoked if obtained by fraud. For example, a naturalized citizen whose path to citizenship was marriage to a US citizen may be denaturalized if it’s shown that the marriage was a sham. A number of people had backgrounds similar to Martin Bartesch, who lost his naturalized US citizenship in 1987 after information came to light that during World War II, he had been a member of the Waffen-SS, the armed Nazi party service that augmented the Wehrmacht, and in that capacity he had killed at least one prisoner while serving as a guard. Bartesch did not disclose this information when he applied for citizenship.

In similar manner, Fawaz Damrah was convicted of lying to obtain citizenship, in violation of 18 US Code § 1425 by making false statements in a citizenship application and interview, concealing his association with Afghan Refugee Services, the Islamic Committee for Palestine and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. His citizenship was revoked (see US v. Damrah, 412 F. 3d 618 (6th Cir. 2005).

If Mr. Khan’s past is free of similar deceptions, I don’t see any path to his involuntary loss of citizenship.

Right – section 4(c) avoids the issue of statelessness – it requires a finding that the person has a claim to citizenship elsewhere.

During the McCarthy era, Linus Pauling had his passport revoked. I am unaware what process was involved, if any.

I don’t think this is in any way about the law/laws. This is about the chaos that’s being created with all border services. Instant travel bans cannot but create chaos. And with that, people who should not be, find themselves, detained, interrogated and refused. Rightly or wrongly. Barely a day goes by without such a tale on the news. Same with ICE, do they know the rules they are supposed to abide by? With an instant roll out it seems sure to lead to chaos as well.

If you sow enough chaos into everything people very soon do not expect the rule of law to help them any more.

This man very likely feels, rightly or wrongly, should he leave the country, he could easily be refused reentry. (They very wrongly refused a born Canadian, w passport just yesterday telling her she had to get a visa! Her skin was brown, she is descendent of immigrants!)

Not exactly. His request to renew his passport was denied. He had submitted his renewal request in anticipation of travel to the UK for a conference beginning May 1, 1952. The State Department denied the request based on the authority then granted by the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, also called the McCarren Act as its principal proponent had been Senator Pat McCarren (D-Nevada). Pauling’s views had led to his being accused of being a member of the Communist Party, which the act outlawed.

After appealing the decision and swearing an oath that he was not a Communist, the State Department reversed its decision and issued him a passport.

Portions of the McCarren Act were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board in 1965 and US v Robel in 1967. The Non-Detention Act of 1971 legislatively repealed other sections.

The no-fly list is still going strong, as far as I know. Plenty of US citizens on it. There is no due process and no recourse if you find yourself on it (and they won’t tell you, you just won’t get to fly). That’s not a ban on travel, per se, but it is a ban on the most useful and significant form of long distance travel.

There is a redress system for the no-fly list, which people have used successfully to get removed. Like a lot of this type of thing, it moves at the speed of bureaucracy.

Of course, neither citizenship nor possession of a passport entitles anyone to board an airplane. They’re separate issues.

Is it correct that some European countries won’t let you travel abroad via plane if you have unpaid taxes?

In Ontario, Canada, failure to pay child and/or spousal support can lead to loss of passport and loss of driver’s licence, or in extreme cases, jail.

Getting back to the OP the issue I think is:
[ul]
[li]Can a US citizen be denied re-entry back into the US (assuming they hold a valid passport)?[/li][li]Is the issue of the “review” a Canadian issue?[/li][li]If the review is an American issue, who/what is prompting this, and why?[/li][/ul]