DSYoungEsq provided that case cite in post #4.
My post #20 was made under the assumption that you were asking, “Notwithstanding the current case law, what would happen?” I based this assumption on your “Can we just talk about the questions raised in the OP?” question posted subsequent to DSYoungEsq’s post.
I was asking people to stop the digs concerning Clinton and Trump, and to stick to the subject.
IIRC, with some combatants in the War On Terror, the USA was having trouble finding cooperative countries to take them back. (Imagine that) Particularly, a person who was captured in Afghanistan may not have the documentation to prove what country they were a citizen of, and records were spotty. The USA I think found some cooperative latin American countries they could lean on to get rid of these guys.
There is also a twist to the question: losing one’s citizenship would not necessarily mean deportation. It could just be the revocation of the rights of a citizen. There are plenty of resident aliens in this country. I can imagine that a government that could strip someone of citizenship could easily give them documentation of that fact in the form of a green card.
Moderator Note
Since this is currently in GQ, let’s all stick to the factual aspects of the topic and take all of the political jabs to a more appropriate forum.
Sorry, Czarcasm and engineer_comp_geek - I was posting from my phone and thought I was in GD.
Good grief. Hillary said the same thing per other posts!
I think the GQ aspect of it has been handled by people smarter than I (me?), but neither Hillary nor Donald seems to be aware that this just will not fly - the Supreme Court ruled on that very topic not that long ago.
etaL Not trying to bring politics into this, just noting that there’s a factual error in the very premise of the sentence.
Yes, that’s how it is NOW. What’s to say that can’t be changed in the future?
I think that’s a question for another time, if SCOTUS ever reverses their decision.
Fair enough.
Any cites on what happens in these cases? I’m not arguing, I’d genuinely like to know.
As far as involuntarily losing citizenship when it was gained by fraudulent means - from the link:
I remember a few years back, a huge legal battle over a fellow who’d been a low-ranking guard at a Nazi concentration camp. This would seem to apply. What’s interesting though is that I, as a US-born citizen (i.e. not naturalized, so there was no fraud involved) would seem to be perfectly able to join the Nazis, the Communists or a terrorist organization.
It’s not clear what they mean by joining the Communist party, and I presume the reference to Nazis is specifically referencing the ones in charge in Germany in the 1940s, versus any neo-Nazi groups, but I could be wrong.
Now, the first one is beyond loathsome, Communism doesn’t thrill me either (and is perfectly legal if potentially career-limiting), and joining a terrorist organization could certainly land me in jail (presumably for conspiracy to do bad things)… but unless they fall under the heading of treason, I’d still be a citizen. The Nolo article doesn’t say what happens if a US citizen, still in the US, has this happen.
Please note that my OP concerns Natural Citizens born in this country only, not “naturalized” or any variation thereof.
Not a radical restructuring. It would just need either a new amendment or a line added to the 14th. That would barely change anything except for a few under very specific circumstances.
No that would not fly. If it were an amendment then it is in the constitution therefore constitutional.
Personally I think it’s a stupid idea but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done.
The Uighurs were probably the most documented case. Bottom line is we were able to get other countries to take them but it took a long time.
Then if that were to happen, what is the most likely outcome? Permanent greencard with no rights? A “temporary” stay in Gitmo? Relocation to a another country(and if so, which one)?
Good question. I am avoiding work, so have been googling like mad, and have found nothing.
Of course, this doesn’t say the US adopted such a plan, just that the UN High Commission on Refugees recommended we do so.
And of course, if you’re US-born, have renounced or lost citizenship per the various links, but are allowed to remain in the US, can you hold a job? have bank accounts? etc. etc. etc.?
The only way to add a line to the 14th would be a… wait for it… new amendment. And there’s no such thing as “just an amendment”: Amendments are a big deal. For comparison, it would also take “just an amendment” to make Bill the Cat dictator-for-life.
If flag-burning were a felony, then as a convicted felon, flag-burners would be barred from a number of jobs, owning property in some states, and most importantly, voting, so they would still be US residents, and citizens for purposes of taxation, and counting for congressional districts, but they’d lose a lot of rights. While they are in prison, they can’t collect social security. A flag-burning amendment could outline specific rights that flag-burners would be deprived of, like being allowed certain kinds of licenses over and above what a felon can’t get (teaching certificate, gun-carrying permit).
I very much doubt it would fly, and Trump would learn he can’t act by fiat, and it would be about time. He seems to think that the president is either like a medieval king, or just plain magic.
It’s less clear cut than denial of citizenship, but any proposed penalty for burning a piece of cloth has the hurdle of the 8th Amendment.
I envision mass flag burning on the I am Spartacus principle if something idiotic like this ever gained traction at all.