Clinton throws her weight behind the Terrorist Expatriation Act

[bascule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1965

 

Long story short, there's a bill before Congress which would kick people out of the country for supporting terrorism. Hillary Clinton is behind it:

 

United States citizenship is a privilege [...] It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers — or in this case, foreign terrorists — are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens.

 

The White House has not issued a statement on it yet. I can definitely say I'm not a fan of this bill. It reminds me far too much of the Bush era. This was the sort of crap I hoped we had put behind us, but apparently not, Democrats can be just as guilty of this authoritarian crap. Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to revoke people's citizenship?

 

If they're doing something illegal, arrest them. Why do we need to grant the federal government he power to take away people's citizenship?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It appears that the Obama administration is pursuing additional limitations on the constitutional rights of terrorism suspects.

[insane_alien]

i give it 15 years before you guys just build a big dome over your country and seal yourselves off.

[swansont]

Clinton's statement would seem to run contrary to the 14th amendment.

 

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

They could easily be prevented from serving as an elected official, though.

 

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

I wonder when Hillary swore an oath to become a citizen.

[Mr Skeptic]

Don't some people renounce their citizenship? Or would that also be unconstitutional?

[swansont]

Don't some people renounce their citizenship? Or would that also be unconstitutional?

 

I don't see why it would be. You can voluntarily waive pretty much any of your rights.

[Phi for All]

They give a few easily agreed on examples of "supporting terrorism", but besides the question of constitutionality, how open to interpretation is the language on this bill? It could easily be an abuse of power that leads to much greater abuse.

[swansont]

They give a few easily agreed on examples of "supporting terrorism", but besides the question of constitutionality, how open to interpretation is the language on this bill? It could easily be an abuse of power that leads to much greater abuse.

 

Yeah, the version where you could lose citizenship for just being a terror suspect is scary, scary, scary, but not really that far off from the power of the attorney general to name you as an enemy combatant and flush a bunch of your rights down the toilet while you are on your way to Gitmo.

[bascule]

They give a few easily agreed on examples of "supporting terrorism", but besides the question of constitutionality, how open to interpretation is the language on this bill? It could easily be an abuse of power that leads to much greater abuse.

 

That's really the problem. Granting the government the power to arbitrarily revoke people's citizenship based on vague criteria is begging for abuse.

 

This reminds me of Gitmo... surely we can detain people indefinitely without trial when they're terrorists? Terrorists don't deserve rights. Except what happens if they're not terrorists?

[D H]

Clinton's statement would seem to run contrary to the 14th amendment.

 

...No State shall make or enforce any law...

How does Clinton's statment run contrary to the 14th amendment? That amendment restricts states, but not the federal government.

 

 

To make bascule's day just a tad better, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAz5HTbaFcgiGhmbogdxlE2QCDzQD9FJFQLO0

In the wake of the Times Square bombing plot, the Obama administration said on Sunday it wants to work with Congress on possible limitations of the constitutional rights afforded terrorism suspects — even for American citizens.

 

Note that this comes from the AP, not the dreaded FoxNews.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This may be important:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

 

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of American citizenship involuntarily. Originally the United States Constitution did not address the issue.

 

You can find the full decision online here to see their reasoning:

 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/253/case.html

[D H]

From the wikipedia article on Afroyim v. Rusk,

The decision did not change these other aspects of U.S. immigration law:

• Someone who committed fraud in the naturalization process (for example, by lying about themselves to U.S. immigration services) could still have their naturalization voided on the grounds that they had never truly been naturalized as U.S. citizens in the first place.
  
  
• Naturalization applicants could still be (and indeed, as of 2008, still are) required to make a statement under oath or affirmation, renouncing any prior allegiance to any foreign country or ruler, upon becoming a U.S. citizen. A naturalized citizen who behaved in a manner inconsistent with this oath (for example, by continuing to use the passport of their previous nationality) might—at least in theory—still be liable to loss of U.S. citizenship on the grounds that the oath had not been taken in good faith (and hence that the naturalization was fraudulent). However, U.S. State Department policy since 19902 has been not to pursue such cases.

 

Also important is Vance v. Terrazas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas Note this ruling occurred after Afroyim v. Rusk.

 

The issue at hand is whether committing a terrorist act

• Constitutes fraud in the naturalization process (and hence the person never really was a citizen), or
  
• Suffices as evidence of intent to relinquish citizenship (and hence Vance v. Terrazas applies).

[Mr Skeptic]

Also important is Vance v. Terrazas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas Note this ruling occurred after Afroyim v. Rusk.

 

Mmmm, irony. A court case ruling that a person who has gone through several courts in an attempt to retain his citizenship of the US, had voluntarily renounced his US citizenship.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That's really the problem. Granting the government the power to arbitrarily revoke people's citizenship based on vague criteria is begging for abuse.

 

Hmmm. Judge via "preponderance of evidence" that an individual gave up their citizenship by committing at terrorist act. Then, no need to treat them as a citizen so no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they in fact did do what they are accused of.

[bascule]

Judge via "preponderance of evidence" that an individual gave up their citizenship by committing at terrorist act.

 

Please show me where in the Constitution it says your citizenship can be revoked for committing a "terrorist" act. If you are convicted of a crime, you should be thrown in jail. "Terrorism" doesn't change this.

[D H]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says your citizenship can be revoked for committing a "terrorist" act.

That's asking a bit much of the Constitution, bascule. Where in the Constitution does it say that it is acceptable for the federal government to have an Air Force? The Constitution is intentionally a high-level, and somewhat vague, document. The details are in Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

[swansont]

How does Clinton's statment run contrary to the 14th amendment? That amendment restricts states, but not the federal government.

 

The part you omitted, before the part you quoted.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From the wikipedia article on Afroyim v. Rusk,

The decision did not change these other aspects of U.S. immigration law:

• Someone who committed fraud in the naturalization process (for example, by lying about themselves to U.S. immigration services) could still have their naturalization voided on the grounds that they had never truly been naturalized as U.S. citizens in the first place.
  
  
• Naturalization applicants could still be (and indeed, as of 2008, still are) required to make a statement under oath or affirmation, renouncing any prior allegiance to any foreign country or ruler, upon becoming a U.S. citizen. A naturalized citizen who behaved in a manner inconsistent with this oath (for example, by continuing to use the passport of their previous nationality) might—at least in theory—still be liable to loss of U.S. citizenship on the grounds that the oath had not been taken in good faith (and hence that the naturalization was fraudulent). However, U.S. State Department policy since 19902 has been not to pursue such cases.

 

Also important is Vance v. Terrazas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas Note this ruling occurred after Afroyim v. Rusk.

 

The issue at hand is whether committing a terrorist act

• Constitutes fraud in the naturalization process (and hence the person never really was a citizen), or
  
• Suffices as evidence of intent to relinquish citizenship (and hence Vance v. Terrazas applies).

 

These do not appear to apply to someone born in the US, who takes no oath.

[bascule]

That's asking a bit much of the Constitution, bascule. Where in the Constitution does it say that it is acceptable for the federal government to have an Air Force? The Constitution is intentionally a high-level, and somewhat vague, document. The details are in Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

 

I'll happily accept relevant SCOTUS precedent. However, even then, there's always a part of the Constitution you can point at and say "that's what authorizes it". For example, in your Air Force example, it's authorized under Article 1, Section 8 (the Air Force grew out of the Army Air Corps). Where's the equivalent for revoking the citizenship of terrorists?

 

If you really think "terrorists" are aiding and abetting enemies of the US, then they should be tried with treason.

[Phi for All]

The issue at hand is whether committing a terrorist act

• Constitutes fraud in the naturalization process (and hence the person never really was a citizen), or
  
• Suffices as evidence of intent to relinquish citizenship (and hence Vance v. Terrazas applies).

Don't forget the corollary issue: at what point does "terrorist act" get redefined to catch the next "tier" of terrorists? How broad a brush will eventually be used in revoking citizenship?

[D H]

These do not appear to apply to someone born in the US, who takes no oath.

The first one, obviously not. The latter, it depends on what the Supreme Court decides. That is, assuming that (a) Congress makes Hilary's wish list into law, and (b) someone appeals to the Supreme Court (which would almost be a certainty if (a) occurs.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Don't forget the corollary issue: at what point does "terrorist act" get redefined to catch the next "tier" of terrorists? How broad a brush will eventually be used in revoking citizenship?

 

I am not arguing for this. I am just avoiding joining the band wagon in decrying it as inherently evil.

[Pangloss]

Don't some people renounce their citizenship? Or would that also be unconstitutional?

 

I'm afraid I can't recall where I read this now, but I saw some piece a week or three ago that said that renouncements are at an all time high -- something like 250 people renounced their citizenship last year. Which is kind of amusingly small, but I wouldn't be surprised if some right wing commentators latched on to that "all time high" bit and ignored the actual number.

[swansont]

The thing is that it's probably unnecessary. Stripping them of citizenship after you've convicted them doesn't accomplish much.

[padren]

I don't understand why we can't just have a legal system that we trust to deal with terrorists. It's not like this closes a "we can't touch them" loophole - it's that we are afraid of the abstract idea that we could let someone walk who wants to blow us up over Miranda rights.

 

If it really is an issue, I'd rather see a raising of the quality of the police work than a decline in constitutional rights. What examples have been cited as showing the pressing need for this law?

 

I could understand (somewhat reluctantly) how if someone was convicted of terrorism in court all the while their full rights as a US Citizen were respected, that their citizenship could be revoked. To do so preemptively based on an accusation seems incredibly unreasonable.

[Mr Skeptic]

The thing is that it's probably unnecessary. Stripping them of citizenship after you've convicted them doesn't accomplish much.

 

I guess the plan must be to strip them of citizenship based solely on accusation, then. That would definitely be useful and convenient.

[bascule]

I don't understand why we can't just have a legal system that we trust to deal with terrorists.

 

That's pretty much what's going on. There's a bunch of people who are all "we can't trust the law to deal with terrorists!" These are the same people making a fuss that we can't try terrorists in civilian courts.

 

Essentially, there's an extremely paranoid subset of Americans who want to bypass the whole America/Constitution thing and waterboard suspected terrorists without a trial, because terrorists can't be trusted.

[swansont]

I guess the plan must be to strip them of citizenship based solely on accusation, then. That would definitely be useful and convenient.

 

Yes, and that is/was one version of the proposal. It also ties in with the attitude of not wanting to bring terrorists to trial with their rights intact, because then the government might have to divulge intelligence that they don't want to divulge, or not use it because it was obtained in a way that is inadmissible. But since the government has IMO repeatedly shown that it can't be trusted, I'm not willing to trust them that Joe Randomguy is a terrorist, and that they got it right this time.

[jryan]

That's pretty much what's going on. There's a bunch of people who are all "we can't trust the law to deal with terrorists!" These are the same people making a fuss that we can't try terrorists in civilian courts.

 

Essentially, there's an extremely paranoid subset of Americans who want to bypass the whole America/Constitution thing and waterboard suspected terrorists without a trial, because terrorists can't be trusted.

 

No, there is a very practical set of Americans that believe that the Constitution applies to citizens, and does not apply to foreign combatants.

 

This rather logical and intelligent group of people also believe that if there are to be any limitations on citizenship it should be at the point when a foreign national on a terrorist watch list for years applies for American Citizenship. If we are stupid enough to grant him that citizenship then we have to live with the consequences.

 

It makes absolutely zero sense to pass a law that gives the right to the Federal Government to withdraw citizenship rights on presumption of guilt to help in the handful of international terrorist attacks on the US by US citizens.

 

What this bill is doing is in essence taking questionable wartime powers (see Lincoln suspension of habeas corpus, and FDR incarceration of Japanese-Americans) and granting them to the Government in perpetuity.

 

I wouldn't even want MY side of the aisle to be granted such powers.