Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship

Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship

www.cnn.com

A bipartisan group of legislators on Thursday introduced legislation in Congress to strip citizenship from any American found to be involved in terrorism.

If the Terrorist Expatriation Act passes, an American would lose citizenship if found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization -- as designated by the secretary of state -- or participated in actions against the United States.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is beyond bad! Basically all they have to do is label you a terrorist and then you have NO rights!

We the people need to WAKE UP now! If a bill like this passes it WILL be the end of our nation as we have known it.

I am actually sick to my stomach after having discovered this!

If you think they won't come after you, then think again buddy!
We live in a country that shoots pets in front of its children on the false tips of "drugs" being in the house. How long until you are turned in by your neighbor and labled a terrorist for taking too much aspirin?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7-5-2010 by bismarcksea]

They need to specify that only those engaged in Islamic jihad will be stripped of citizenship.

Using the term "terrorist" is to vague and can basically be applied to any citizen which of course falls right into the hands of the jihad in that they will be able to continue waging war ensconced safely in the label of "criminal" instead of "enemy soldier".

And the communists and socialists will defend the jihadis as they serve as bludgeoning tools with which to pummel citizens.

sorry folks, but this will never pass, it probably won't even get out of committee. just some stupid remark by lieberman.

reply to post by bismarcksea

This is beyond bad! Basically all they have to do is label you a terrorist and then you have NO rights!

Citizenship is not what defines rights, and such a remark is as dangerous as this Bill is.

Rights preexist governments, and the privilege of citizenship can only exist with government. Never should rights be confused with citizenship, and long before this whole terrorist fiasco came along, far too many people were far to willing to frame Natural and Inalienable Rights as "civil rights" which is to say statutorily created rights. In the United States of America, the only Rights that matter are those that are Inalienable, and those are what need to be defended, and if one thinks voting will do that, then we have bigger problems than terrorists on our hands.

"As the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square showed us again, our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans [in WWII],"

Yea... and our enemies domestically do that too...

Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen, recently admitted driving a Nissan Pathfinder into New York's Times Square on Saturday and attempting to detonate the vehicle, which was packed with gasoline, propane tanks, fireworks and fertilizer, according to a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in New York.

he didint even set it up right. these supposed terrorists brought down the twin towers, but cannot effectively detonate a vehicle filled with flammables? Not to mention he bought the wrong fertilizer. He wasn't a terrorist; He was an idiot!

"The bill we're introducing today would simply update the 1940 law to account for the enemy that we are fighting today," he said. "Many have said this law goes too far. Remember, this bill only updates an existing statute that has been on the books for 70 years that accounts for the terrorist enemy that we are fighting today."

More reason to subordinate a subordinate group even further, not to mention open up more pretense into arresting innocents and suspending your rights. does anyone else see a problem here?

"I do think it's important to know on what basis [they'd lose their citizenship]," she said. "We are committed to due process in our country. ... What's the standard?"

In other words... conform or be deported!

"It's unconstitutional," said Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union." Taking away someone's citizenship is a truly extraordinary step and to do that based on mere suspicion and to be giving that power to government bureaucrats without ever having a court trial will be an amazing step."

Under the new proposed bill, the Department of State would have the ability to revoke an American's citizenship based on a person renouncing their citizenship. The individual, Lieberman stressed, would still have the right to appeal the determination at the State Department -- or take it to federal court.

This bill should be shot down immediately. I wonder what Ron Paul would have to say about this.

I cant read anymore. reading news like this junk ticks me off.

S&F for bringing this to my attention.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Citizenship is not what defines rights, and such a remark is as dangerous as this Bill is.

Stop being so naive. The right to vote is based on citizenship. The right to work inside the United States is based on citizenship or a work visa (which you also would lose or not be able to obtain). If a Ron Paul voter is deemed a terrorist then he/she basically loses all freedom within the United States and since no other country will take them will probably be forced to be interred by the US government.

reply to post by ararisq

Stop being so naive. The right to vote is based on citizenship.

My friend, you are the one who is being naive, and your insistence on equating the privilege of voting with Inalienable rights is just tragic.

The right to work inside the United States is based on citizenship or a work visa (which you also would lose or not be able to obtain).

The right to work is an Inalienable Right, which means it is not transferable, and exists with the person who claims that right.

If a Ron Paul voter is deemed a terrorist then he/she basically loses all freedom within the United States and since no other country will take them will probably be forced to be interred by the US government.

Of course, this remark is nothing more than histrionics, and I am a Ron Paul voter, and in California we had the opportunity to vote for him in the last Presidential election. That ability to vote for him, had nothing at all to do with my Inalienable Rights, and your insistence on equating the two is precisely what the federal government wants you to believe. If you are not willing to defend Inalienable Rights, then what good will your vote for Ron Paul do?

#1) Burn this Bill. It's horrific.

#2) Get whomever wrote this bill, and strip them of their rights.

Then we will see who is the wise guy.

I'm sure that we are not at all supposed to put together the fact the White House is contemplating creating a fast-track system to citizenship for illegals while at the same tyime stripping current Americans of their citizen status.

Anybody else want to take the bet that this is merely so the average number of citizens remains stable?

I have a feeling that if we, the current legal citizens, begin seeing a huge surge in citizenship should illegals get the right to apply and be approved quickly, there would be an outcry.

However, if you remove say 50,000 citizens and add 55,000 previously illegals, who would notice the change?

Just a thought. I find it too coincidental that this legislation would be presented at the same time they are supposed to be focusing on immigration reform.

I'm not explaining this right but I think the goal is simply to create a wash as to not draw attention to the REAL number of illegal citizens.

Just to throw one in there, So to speak, How about (when you lose your citizenship) you claim political asylum, on the grounds you will be arrested and tortured and interned, (FEMA camp) Like the terrorist from the Iranian embassy siege, (damn missed one) I am lead to believe he still resides here in the UK (payed by the taxpayers), After almost 30 odd years..

PS I was not on the balcony,

Muslim jihad soldiers engaged in open warfare on the streets of America are not citizens.

They are enemy soldiers killing citizens.

Just the utterance of these words has probably stalled the attack plans of muslim jihad soldiers already in America. They now know that they will not enjoy the rights of the country they are attacking.

Still, it will not end Jihad because, in the end, the stripping of citizenship will all to often happen only after a muslim jihad soldier has carried out his attack and killed as many enemy citizens as possible.

If we are pro-active and strip the muslim jihad soldiers and their military support networks of citizenship before they attack, we will be better able to protect American citizens.

The jihadis have had a decade since 9/11 to retreat back to The House of Islam, back to the Ummah. They have not.

Americans grow impatient with muslim jihad violence. We are not Europeans and will not tolerate this attack on our nation much longer.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Muslim jihad soldiers engaged in open warfare on the streets of America are not citizens.

Ok?

And what about kids who shoot their classmates at school?

They are citizens still?

This is absurd.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


The purpose of terrorism, which is to attack the civilian public, and I assure you a terrorist does not care whether that public are citizens or not, is to instill fear in that public so they will demand of government stricter controls. The more persistent the attacks, the more the public will demand stricter controls. The stricter the controls become, the more dissatisfied the public becomes with that government. The more dissatisfied the public becomes, the more likely they are to create regime change. Thus, where the small operation could never win by attacking that nations military directly, they win indirectly by encouraging the public to do their work for them. This is the purpose of terrorism.

After reading this bill, and thinking on this, I would disagree with it. You can not just start to do bills like these, cause it is easy, or would seem like a simple solution. There would be no protection for any citizen at that point, because I believe that it would open the door to abuse by federal government. They don't like a certain group, or an opposing view, have them declared as a terrorist and strip their citizenship. And alot of the things that could be done legally, but because the federal government under Bush choose not to declare war, it binds them to have to work with in the constraints of the law. Charges that could be levied against those who knowingly and willingly engage in hostility against the United States can not as long as there is no act of war.

Renouncing your U.S. citizenship is not easy. You have to have a sponsor nation to take you after you leave the States and jump through a bunch of hoops. Of course there's treason as a way out, but that could get you executed. I guess it will be easier to get out of the U.S. now that we just need to be labeled as a "terrorist". Of course if by terrorist they mean enemy combatant, then you risk the GitMo experience with no hope of release.

Like an earlier poster said they have illegals as replacements for us. All of the current citizens of the U.S. who want out should go down to Mexico and take over a state down there as illegals in their country before they decide we don't deserve our U.S citizenship here. Heck, that may not work if the Mexican's label us as international terrorists. Back to the drawing board.

Hello. Please redirect all comments to the previous discussion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you. Thread closed.