Ha how come nobody talks about it here?
Patriot Act II says that your citizenship can be stripped merely by inferring from your conduct.
What do you call that in your history class?
"Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But—and read this carefully from the new bill—“the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.”
I have not seen such a massive bout of “head-in-the-sand” syndrome in such an educated country since the Iran-Contra affair.
I fear that most people will say that “it will never happen to me,” so they turn a blind eye until it is someone they know that is violated. By then it will be too late.
What does really saying anything about it here do? If someone doesn’t like it they should form some type of website, and spread the word instructing people how to write their congressman & senators against it…
But so far I’ve seen a lot of complaining, and no one talking about any real action.
Interesting. I along with several million other people, I’m sure, knew nothing about this.
It’s really very simple, I think.
When the government breaks the law, there is one very easy solution. They change the law.
That’s what this bill will do. Change the law so all the things they are doing that are illigal, wont be any more.
It would need to be a non-american. Because that would be considered un-patriotic.
Do you really want to be considered un-patriotic in America right now?
They have. Check out:
www.aila.org (American Immigation Lawyers Association; look at the current issue of Washington Update); I can post a more precise link tomorrow from work, but my IE at home is misbehaving)
Forward links to all your friends!
P.S. Wouldn’t you rather be morally right than patriotic? I sure would (now anyway; who knows what it will take for me to flip-flop on this).
Who says we don’t? We extensively discussed Patriot II when it was first leaked to the press.
That includes an extensive discussion of the citizenship provision you are concerned about. (Short answer: it isn’t nearly as awful as you make it out to be.)
The search feature is your friend.
I think I screweed the link up. Here it is again in all its unvarnished glory:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161582
Okay then thanks for the link. (haven’t been here for a while)
Maybe we need to hear some more focusing discussion on this topic as more information is available.
By the way, can you tell me why “it isn’t nearly as awful as you make it out to be?”
Long story short: because intent is almost universally derived from conduct anyway. Patriot II just makes that explicit; it is, effectively, a statutory codification of a judicially-created rule of evidence.
Think about it: if you run off to join a foriegn military, but never say the words “I wish to renounce my US citizenship,” do you really think a court, even absent Patriot II, would have any trouble finding that you intended to renounce your citizenship? No, of course not. Your conduct makes your intent clear. You don’t need to speak any “magic words” to indicate that intent.
The thread linked has a more detailed discussion.
That thread follows the same pattern I predict this thread will follow: lots of righteous indignation and moral outrage on the first page from people who haven’t actually read the text of Patriot II, followed by a more sober analysis on subsequent pages by people who have.
So you think the assault on civil liberties is justified?
remove existing protections under the Freedom of Information Act, making it easier for the government to hide whom it is holding and why, and preventing the public from ever obtaining embarrassing information about government overreaching.
nullify existing consent decrees against state law enforcement agencies that prevent the agencies from spying on individuals and organizations.
proposed bill prevents courts from issuing injunctions to block future abuses.
strip U.S. citizenship from anyone who gives “material support” to any group that the attorney general designates as a terrorist organization.
The Constitution is about to be scrapped!
Kind of a loaded question, don’t you think? Why don’t you just ask me if I’ve stopped beating my wife? 
I don’t think every little thing the administration has done is peachy keen, but I hardly think the Chicken Little routine is appropriate, either. If you’d like to cite to specific provisions of Patriot II to support your allegations of content, we can discuss it (here is the text in PDF – warning, it’s big).
However, you clearly haven’t done your homework. Consider:**
This is patently false, and was pointed out as being false in the previous thread. The AG does not get to desginate what is or is not a terrorist organization. That duty falls to Congress. As I wrote in the prior thread:
I should note that, after looking at the proposal in more detail, there is also a procedure for the Secretary of State (not the AG) to designate such organizations, and provides for judicial review of that determination (see 8 USC 1189).
In any event, get your facts straight before you claim the sky is falling.
This is based on what and decided by whom? Emergency act? PACII is supposed to be used in the peace time, right?
This is from the Center for Public Integrity - pay attention to the last sentence:
Section 501, “Expatriation of Terrorists”: This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.
========
Under which, an intent to renounce citizenship could be “inferred from conduct,” so that a cash contribution to, say, a group the government considered suspect could become grounds for expatriation. In such a case, the ex-American would lose all his or her constitutional rights and become legally naked in the face of government power.
Sky is falling!
Did you even bother to read my post? As I said, a “terrorist organization” is either designated by Congressional act, or by the Secretary of State (not the AG). The latter provides for judicial review of the determination if the organization so desires. **
Then the CPI is a bunch of idiots. The second-to-last sentence is patently false. Patriot II does not make a new rule; it just partially codifies a longstanding judicially-created rule. See pp. 30-31 of the PDF copy of the proposal I linked to for citations to specific cases. A person never had to actually say “I renounce my citizenship” in order to so renounce when his intent to do so was clear from his actions.
Furthermore, the proposal is even more limited: rather than just codify the general “intent can be inferred from conduct” rule outright, it actually just provides that certain acts are prima facie evidence of intent to renounce citizenship. Specifically, it says that serving in a foriegn military or providing “material support” to a terrorist organization both are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of intent to relinquish citizenship.
Well, you might ask, what is “material support?” The proposal incorporates a definition of that phrase from existing law, specifically any act that would violate the federal criminal law making it illegal to provide material support to a terrorist organization (18 USC 2339A):
Thus, the last sentence of the CPI description is also incorrect – engaging in “lawful acts” does not run afoul of this proposal; only acts which were already unlawful under existing federal criminal law trigger the presumption of intent. **
Let’s review, shall we?
The inclusion of an organization as a “terrorist organization” is not made on a whim; it is either done via Congressional act or by the Secretary of State with the check of judicial review.
Simply writing a check isn’t enough. The actor must also know that his financial support is going to aid in terrorist activities against the US.
A person stripped of citizenship does not become “legally naked;” resident aliens are still protected by the criminal due process requirements of the Constitution. Deportation, not incarceration, is the more likely result of losing one’s citizenship.**
The Chicken Little routine doesn’t play here. Critics of the administration only make themselves look foolish when they describe things like this proposal as the end of the free world. A more measured (and informed) criticism would be much more effective.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, these are the crimes for which “material support” is a criminal act:
Title 18
Section 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
Section 37 - Violence at international airports
Section 81 - Arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
Section 175 - Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons
Section 351 - Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties
Section 831 - Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials
Section 842(m), (n) - Unlawful acts (Re: Explosive Materials)
Section 844(f), (i) - Penalties (Re: Explosive Materials)
Section 930© - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
Section 956 - Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country
Section 1114 - Protection of officers and employees of the United States
Section 1116 - Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons
Section 1203 - Hostage taking
Section 1361 - Government property or contracts (Destruction of)
Section 1362 - Communication lines, stations or systems (Destruction of)
Section 1363 - Buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (Destruction of)
Section 1366 - Destruction of an energy facility
Section 1751 - Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties
Section 1992 - Wrecking trains
Section 2155 - Destruction of national-defense materials, national-defense premises, or national-defense utilities
Section 2156 - Production of defective national-defense material, national-defense premises, or national-defense utilities
Section 2280 - Violence against maritime navigation
Section 2281 - Violence against maritime fixed platforms
Section 2332 - Criminal penalties (Re: Homicide of US National outside of the US)
Section 2332a - Use of certain weapons of mass destruction
Section 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
Section 2332c - (repealed? Apparently related to chemical weapons)
Section 2340A - Torture
Title 49
Section 46502 - Aircraft piracy
Screwed up the link on that last one…it’s 49 USC 46502 - Aircraft piracy.
Current (a)3 & (b) of 8 U.S.C. 1481 read as follows:
(a) 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 entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
If Patriot ACT II got its way into the law, (a)3 & (b) of 8 U.S.C. 1481 would be read as follows: (the changes are in black)
(a) 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 entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) (i) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (ii) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; (B) joining or serving in, or providing material support (as defined in section 2339A of title 18, U.S.C.) to, a terrorist organization designated under section 212(a)(3) or 219 or designated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, if the organization is engaged in hostilities against the United States, its people, or its national security interests.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily. The voluntary commission or performance of an act described in subsection (a) (3) (A) (i) or (B) shall be prima facie evidence that the act was done with the intention of relinguishing United States nationality.
So the interpretation of CPI on PACII is correct. The new law affirms that the intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General or whoever could be presumptive grounds for expatriation. Read the change carefully, from “preponderance of the evidence” to “prima facie evidence”. Sh*t! You can get kicked out of the country by merely committing some “material support” (which, from your quote of law above, could be some trivial criminal acts) acts.
The sky IS falling!
Now you’re just being deliberately stupid. Did you even bother to read my post?
“Terrorist organization” is NOT – FOR THE THIRD TIME, NOT – defined by the AG. An organization is so designated either by Congressional act or by the Secretary of State; if the designation is by the Secretary of State, then the organization has the right to judicial review of the designation.
“Material support” is well-defined. It does NOT include “trivial criminal acts.” If you think it does, perhaps you’d be so kind as to point out which of the items on that list you find “trivial”?
And let’s not forget, “material support” means an act committed with knowledge that the support is going toward one of the proscribed acts. So writing a check is OK if you’re unaware that the funds are going to be used to aid a terrorist act.
Furthermore – it bears repeating – the notion that intent can be inferred from conduct is not a new one; it is the way the courts have interpreted the need to prove intent for a very long time and the change to the statute only reflects that judicially-adopted rule.
When you started this thread, I had the impression you were genuinely curious about the contents of Patriot II. Yet when informed of the actual scope of the proposal, you continue to bleat the same nonsense. What a pity.
Oh, and by the way: the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is not for rebutting whether an act constitutes intent to relinquish – it is for rebutting the presumption that an act was done voluntarily. PATRIOT II DOES NOT CHANGE THIS STANDARD. Note that the prior language remains in the statute.
The “prima facie” language DOES apply to the question of whether there is intent to relinquish citizenship. It is a new addition to the statute, but as noted is HOW THE COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THE STATUTE. Thus, while it does change the text, it does not change how the statute is interpreted.
It would be really nice if you or CPI could actually be bothered to read and comprehend the language in the proposal before either of you decide to criticize it.