From your .gov cite, “The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual … Performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”
I would say that what they did qualifies. Yet, even so, the Constitution protects non-citizens as well.
Yes, but it doesn’t protect citizenship, per se, except that it can’t be stripped arbitrarily. The system in place is sufficient due process. If our government was a just a little smarter, JFK would be an elder statesman today rather than dead at the hands of a man who renounced his citizenship but was allowed back anyway.
If you believe JFK would have made it to age 98, you have far more faith in the man than I do.
The Constitution requires a trial. Cruz’s bill would make revocation of citizenship automatic.
IANAL, but…
Not if that removes liberty without due process of law. That’s where constitutional rights come in.
Also, and distinct from above:
Daesh is a state. At least they say they’re a state. Swearing an oath to them might mean something if we start to recognize Daesh; but if we don’t recognize them as a state, stripping a citizen of his citizenship would make him stateless, and that’s not legally acceptable.
Al Qaeda is not a state. An oath to them is not a renunciation of citizenship anymore than is a pledge to Americans for Tax Reform.
You mean “enemy combatant,” and none of them were citizens in the first place.
Not that they were necessarily treated right, but we were talking specifically about citizenship.
If I may interrupt this hijack, allow me to introduce Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA, who had this to say yesterday on the subject of the Supreme Court vacancy;
[QUOTE=Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA]
The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year. Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.
[/QUOTE]
Permit me to introduce also a gentleman who had a very different mindset in 2008, when Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican president was seeking to appoint judges;
[QUOTE=Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA]
Unfortunately, the Democrats have been employing some fast and fancy footwork to avoid their Constitutional responsibility. Democratic leadership is putting partisan advantage ahead of the health of our judicial system.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure these two have much to discuss.
:dubious:
I know that that was directed at his immigration position, but “smarter than all of us”?!? :rolleyes:
Since this is about the stupid republican idea of the day this recent one coming from Cruz shows how even George Bush the lesser was smarter than him.
The video contrast Cruz, in a very recent talk he made claiming that “they” changed global warming to “climate change” just recently, with Margaret Thatcher and other Republicans of the past and the Democrats; they were aware decades ago about what climate change was, and the implications it had for future generations (and now current ones).
Grassley is also on record as strongly supporting Justice Kennedy’s confirmation in 1988, a - wait for it! - election year.
Should Obama nominate Grassley’s fellow Iowan Jane Kelly to replace Scalia, Grassley’s contortions would be truly comical given how strenuously he lobbied for her confirmation on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although, given he is a Republican and wont to obstruct, it wouldn’t be surprising to see how he’d reverse himself. Just comical.
[QUOTE=Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA]
The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year.
[/QUOTE]
Then he will have no problem naming just one of the many SCOTUS confirmations that presidents deferred to the next administration. Any one will do.
Without clicking on the link, let me guess, the guy is a former or current Faux News journalist or at least studied under Roger Ailes.
Spokeswoman. She’s a former candidate for Congress, but she lost.
Let’s have some fun watching Republican minds explore: nominate Anita Hill for Supreme Court Justice.
It already is. You need a trial if you are accused of a crime. Joining a foreign military or pledging allegiance to another state is not a crime. It’s akin to changing your address. You do not need a trial to have your residency revoked, you do not need a trial to have your citizenship revoked. However, you can of course appeal the decision if you think it was wrongly made. Somehow I don’t think anyone who is a member of ISIS will be appealing that decision, so no harm done.
That’s absurd. The government cannot just take away citizenship for any reason using any process it wants to.
That would be a crazy idea even without the 14th amendment. If a government could just declare anyone it wants to be no longer a citizen, the very idea of democracy would be destroyed.
What if they say they are not a member of ISIS and have been wrongly accused?
You’re right that it can’t be arbitrary, but what constitutes due process is vague and up to Congress. Current law says the INS decides and their decision can be appealed.
According to the system, they would appeal and would have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they did not join a foreign enemy’s force. Which is easy to do if you’re in the US and there’s no evidence that you joined ISIS. But if you’re making propaganda videos for them, good luck.
From my reading of the Cruz bill, all it does is treat ISIS as a foreign enemy military for the purposes of whether citizens can join it without losing their citizenship. An administration still has discretion as to how to apply the law.
Will you be around to decide the criteria of revocation for all future presidents? Because I foresee a day when a Republican simply revokes the citizenship of enough Democrats on trumped up disloyalty charges to preserve party dominance.
So guilty until proven innocent?