OK, but I really do what to know that under this draft, can an American citizen be expatriated if they are born and bred in the USA?
Of course, you HAVE read the actual text of the proposed law, right?
Duckster, what an irrelevant “observation” you made. Isn’t it painfully obvious that the reason I asked MEBuckner
the question was precisely because he is a moderator?
Gee, I can really get used to this style of reply. Almost like a Haiku in its format. One bold, one quotation, followed by a taunt. Very Zen.
Let us not forget that this proposed law also permits secret arrests. Knock on the door in the middle of the night. You disappear. Nobody is ever informed of your whereabouts again. You have simply ceased to exist. Under the proposed law, this would be 100% legal. There will be no appeal. There will be no possibility of appeal.
Welcome to the new Soviet Union.
Boy, this is a quandry. Can’t very well let Pencil stick up for me while I sit quietly (BTW: thanks), that would be chickenshit. On the other hand, I’m inclined to shrug it off. On more than one occassion, posters (one Unamed One in particular) have siezed me by the lapels and shrieked “Liar!” in my face till the veins throbbed in his neck. It would seem that, indeed, that is acceptable. In the past, questions of this type have been answered in “my way or the highway” fashion.
So, maybe we just say “liar” is ok, “head up and locked” isn’t, and just forget it. Thanks, anyway.
Forget it, Pencil. It’s Chinatown.
To me, this isn’t even the most relevant part. There is supposed to be no material distinction among U.S. citizens; even a naturalized citizen is not supposed to be able to be deported unless it can be proved that citizenship was granted either through error or by fraud on the part of the applicant. And even then, there are elaborate layers of checks and balances. That’s why it takes so long to deport Nazi war criminals; their citizenship has to be stripped in Federal court first (the idea being that they gained citizenship by fraud, as one is not eligible if one has engaged in the persecution of others, so they never should have gotten green cards in the first place for lying on their iniital applicaitons to enter as Displaced Persons after WWII).
The moment we start distinguishing between citizens based on the accident of their place of birth (and I’m not talking about the extremely limited exception of eligibility for the Presidency; I’m not crazy about theat distinction either, but can at least understand the practical reasons for it), we are no longer a country I can support morally.
Upon perusal of the PDF of the actual draft bill, these were the sections that stood out:
Section 201, as well as most of the rest of Title II (beginning on page 13)
Allows the government to keep detainees secret. Combine with Section 501, and “disappear” is now officially a verb.
Section 404 (page 22)
Sentences “no fewer than 5 years” in prison anyone who uses encryption technology to commit or cover up a crime, and encourages ISPs to gives the government the decryption information. This isn’t that nefarious (if the people involved are actually committing crimes…), but an extra five years just for using legal technology to do something illegal just seems strange.
Section 501 (page 30)
Expatriation of terrorists. “This provision also would make explicit that the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.”
**Jello, ** I’ll read the draft eventually, but in the meantime, does Section 501 say anything about what kind of conduct might lead to an inference that one intends to relinquish one’s nationality?
It quotes King v. Rogers (9th circuit, 1972) as saying “Specific subjective intent to renounce US citizenship…may be proved…by evidence of an explicit renunciation, acts inconststent with United States citizenship, or by affirmative voluntary act[s] clearly manifesting a decision to accept [foreign] nationality.”
It goes on to say, “Specifically, this proposal would make service in a hostile army or terrorist group prima facie evidence of an intent to renounce citizenship.”
That sucks rocks! People, especially in unfriendly regimes, don’t always get to make meaningful choices about military service…by the bit you’ve quoted, then, someone born in the U.S., who was taken back to Iraq by his parents and is now 18, could be drafted to fight against the U.S. and lose the citizenship he was entitled to at birth!
If you take it even further, it sounds like naturalizing in another country may return to the point where it is construed as evidence of intent to renounce U.S. citizenship…and here I thought we’d gotten to the point where we acknowledged that U.S. citizens sometimehave good reasons for having dual nationality…
I’ll post what I’m sure is going to be some scathing commentary from the American Immigration Lawyers Association when I get back to work next week.
Look on the bright side. The expatriation should make it easier to be granted political asylum in countries that are difficult to immigrate to.:dubious:
Is there anyone here who thinks this plan IS a good idea? Having lurked for a while, I know this board tends to lean to the left, but not a single person posting in favor of it? I don’t see any problem with it from what I read in the links – am I the only one?
Except I never called you a liar, at least not in GD. I called your premise a lie, which it was.
The rumoured new law purports to expatriate those who have voluntarily given up their citizenship by serving in a hostile army or terrorist group.
See? Not citizens, but those who have voluntarily given their citizenship up. Your original claim about “citizens being deported” is nonsense.
Arar is not an American citizen. elucidator claimed that under his rumoured new law, American citizens would be deported. Not true.
Well, the article notes that the administration wants to be able to infer the voluntary giving up of citizenship based on their interpretations of activities in situations that are decided, apparently without legal counsel or actual trials. While it may be argued that the government would never abuse that power (as they are already doing in the case of natural born citizen, Jose Padilla), or that the article overstates the proposal that the government is actually making, elucidator’s claim, while disputable, does not qualify as a lie.
So deliberately making a claim that one knows to be false, is not a lie?
luci said American citizens would be deported, the article he cited did not.
Or is this distortion of the facts now a “rhetorical device”, or some such?
So, is that like fainting with damn praise?
Gotta remember that “premise” dodge, that’ll come in handy.
“Your premise sucks festering goat gonads!” Entirely acceptable, pefectly civil. Oh, yeah, I can get some mileage outa that.
No. The article said that the government wanted more freedom to deport people and it wanted greater power to deprive persons of citizenship. If the government declares Jose Padilla a non-citizen and then deports him, they will have deported an American citizen. They may have made it a two-step process by inserting the deprivation of citizenship in the middle, but they will have taken a person raised as a citizen and deported him.
Um yeah, that’s rather the rule around here. Attack the post, not the poster. Where have you been?
No. Two-step process or not, if they declare someone a non-citizen, and then deport him, a citizen has not been deported.
Besides, no one is planning to declare Sr. Padilla a non-citizen. Any enemy combatant, sure. So there he is, cooling his heels in the brig. Cry me a river.
Unless, of course, you have evidence that Padilla is going to be deported, or will it be the same non-evidence of plans to deport citizens that elucidator claimed?