New Bill and Hillary says US Citizenship is not a right

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steinhauer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
12,071
Reaction score
136
Controversial terror bill creates unlikely allies, foes - Yahoo! News

Controversial terror bill creates unlikely allies, foes


snip ......


"I have not heard anybody inside the administration that's been supportive of that idea," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Thursday.

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration would take "a hard look" at the measure, the New York Times reported. "United States citizenship is a privilege," she told the Times. "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.

So, should we strip citizenship from those who commit crimes?

I.E. Those Americans who help Mexican Drug Cartels?
 
I can see it now; "I sentence you to 10 years, and you are no longer an American."

This is a can of worms that might be best left unopened. If someone is a citizen of US, and that is removed, they become a vagabond, a citizenless person, a gypsy. When the prison time ends, the sentence is still life. Why would another country accept this person to be a citizen of their country? How would a person find work, residence? Just on the chance that a mistake is made, and we certainly read DNA-appealed cases that are proving convicted felons to actually be innocent, what would be the best way to compensate a wrongly convicted person?

Seems to me, with the felony conviction taking away voting rights, citizenship is partially removed. If you can't vote, own a firearm, etc, hasn't your citizenship already been compromised?
 
Nope. They're wrong. The Constitution makes it clear - it's a right that we acquire when we're born on USA soil or naturalized.

As upset as we are about the naturalized citizen for trying to kill our fellow Americans, he must be tried as a citizen. He's not guilty until convicted by the court. Even with that, we cannot strip away their citizenship.

So, what's the best way to make them lose their citizenship? Being convicted of treason is the best way you can lose your citizenship, legally. Also, another way to lose it is to formally renounce it.
 
No. Not when a person is in cahoot with a terrorist group with the aim to help plan and commit atrocities by killing innocent Americans. I have no sympathy for those people. They lose all rights, including citizenship if they are caught and found guilty. Naturalized citizens, they go back to their original country for all I care and lose U.S. citizenship. Let's not get limp wristed here. We are living in increasingly dangerous times.
 
I want terrorists to be in ADX Florance instead of deport to their home country.
 
No. Being able to take away citizenship for any reason opens it up for abuse.

All it takes is for someone to want to frame you for a crime and now you can't even exercise your American rights. Or you do something on accident. Heck, let's make you lose your citizenship over a speeding ticket. You're a criminal, after all. Yeah, no!

Citizenship is an unalienable right and as outlined in the Constitution today is excellent. Leave it alone.
 
How would that be different from an American white female who plotted the same evil act? How come we haven't discussed about stripping her citizenship?
 
How would that be different from an American white female who plotted the same evil act? How come we haven't discussed about stripping her citizenship?

who?
 
the comment refers to those who have become citizens from another country. If ya born here it's automatic. Immigration requires the aforementioned 'oath'. You are required to be supportive of your country or it can be revoked.
mexican nationals.....(those who became US citizens).. yup....boot thier asses if they runnin dope tied to cartels. they gave up thier privilege.

Controversial terror bill creates unlikely allies, foes - Yahoo! News



So, should we strip citizenship from those who commit crimes?

I.E. Those Americans who help Mexican Drug Cartels?
 
No. Not when a person is in cahoot with a terrorist group with the aim to help plan and commit atrocities by killing innocent Americans. I have no sympathy for those people. They lose all rights, including citizenship if they are caught and found guilty. Naturalized citizens, they go back to their original country for all I care and lose U.S. citizenship. Let's not get limp wristed here. We are living in increasingly dangerous times.

I will have to agree with you on that. People who come to America for the purpose to destroy us do not deserve an US Citizenship.
 
A treason charge is all it takes to revoke citizenship but the fact that he is an American citizen, he has the same rights as we all have and should be treated accordingly. You cannot strip his citizenship until he's convicted of treason.
 
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(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—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) 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; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(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.
United States Code: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
No. Being able to take away citizenship for any reason opens it up for abuse.

All it takes is for someone to want to frame you for a crime and now you can't even exercise your American rights. Or you do something on accident. Heck, let's make you lose your citizenship over a speeding ticket. You're a criminal, after all. Yeah, no!

Citizenship is an unalienable right and as outlined in the Constitution today is excellent. Leave it alone.

That is what I was thinking too. This bill "seems" to want to take away rights.

However good intentioned it may be ..... Hillary agrees with it .... so naturally, I am suspicious :giggle:

edited:

Here is what I do not like about it:

1) The article mentions the State Department as the final authority to strip citizenship (no trial?)

2) This bill is allowing a term to be interjected as a factor for stripping citizenship (terrorist)

a) Tea Party?
b) Hutaree?
c) Republican?
d) Democrat?

Who gets to define "terrorist"? If you join a political activist group and the one whom holds opposite views is in power, can they use this law to strip you of your citizenship by defining your group as a "terrorist organization"?
 
Last edited:
Just an example:

"Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States," the FBI explained online. "As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement." The FBI says sovereign citizens have engaged in various crimes, including murder, threatening public officials, and impersonating law enforcement.

Another organization has also recently trumpeted the threat it believes rightwing extremists pose. According to a controversial report issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center last month, "Rage on the Right," rightwing antigovernment extremist and hate groups have ballooned since the election of President Barack Obama. Mark Potok, the author of the report, wrote last week that the fifteenth anniversary of Oklahoma City should remind Americans that the same sentiments that led to McVeigh's terrorist act have arisen again today.

Napolitano Urges Vigilance on Antigovernment Extremism During Memorial Ceremony | Security Management
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top