View Full Version : Cruz to Introduce Bill to Stop Americans Who Join ISIS From Returning to United State
September 5, 2014
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1678
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, announced today his intent to file theExpatriate Terrorist Act (E.T.A.) of 2014 as soon as the Senate is called back into session on Monday, September 8th.
“Americans who choose to go to Syria or Iraq to fight with vicious ISIS terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence, including beheading innocent American journalists who they have captured,” said Sen. Cruz. “There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to re-enter our country and carry out further attacks on American civilians.”
MorphCross
09-06-14, 22:11
Only if this:
The ETA amends an existing statute that provides certain actions by which a United States citizen renounces their citizenship to include becoming a member of, fighting for, or providing material assistance to a designated foreign terrorist organization that is working to attack the United States or its citizens. Provided the requirements of due process are observed, if a U.S. Citizen undertakes these acts with the intent of supplanting his U.S. Citizenship with loyalty to a terrorist organization, that person can be deemed to have forfeited their right to be a United States Citizen and return to the United States.
Is strictly held to ISIS/ISIL would I even think of supporting it.
If this broadens the terminology to basically any organization deemed as terrorists by a foreign government, Kill it where it sits.
Only if this is strictly held to ISIS/ISIL would I even think of supporting it. If this broadens the terminology to basically any organization deemed as terrorists by a foreign government, Kill it where it sits.
Quote from the link in the OP: "The ETA amends an existing statute that provides certain actions by which a United States citizen renounces their citizenship to include becoming a member of, fighting for, or providing material assistance to a designated foreign terrorist organization that is working to attack the United States or its citizens. Provided the requirements of due process are observed, if a U.S. Citizen undertakes these acts with the intent of supplanting his U.S. Citizenship with loyalty to a terrorist organization, that person can be deemed to have forfeited their right to be a United States Citizen and return to the United States."
Why just ISIS/ISIL? Why not all foreign terrorist organizations as the language above states? Then again, the actual language in the bill introduced tomorrow is what matters.
MorphCross
09-07-14, 09:49
As you say, the language of the bill itself is what matters. However I don't trust the government to restrain itself so by focusing the amendment on a specific group and maintaining transparency for the due process to expat an individual the government would actually have a chance at test cases for expanding the coverage to other foreign terrorist organizations.
Remember it's damn hard to close when Pandora's Box gets open.
This is a double edged sword. While I understand and even support the idea to a degree I fear that giving a government already hostile towards its own citizens more power over them is not a good idea in the long run. This admin has already shown its willingness to ignore and break the law. Why give them or the next batch of fools a way to target those who oppose them. What happens when M4C is administratively labeled as a terror organization??
We need a new bill for that? Is not going of to fight for a known enemy of the US already covered by existing laws?
We need a new bill for that? Is not going of to fight for a known enemy of the US already covered by existing laws?
Good question, but presumably not, hence the new Cruz bill. Anybody know for sure?
MountainRaven
09-07-14, 13:29
Good question, but presumably not, hence the new Cruz bill. Anybody know for sure?
They'll have to pass the bill before they can find out what's in it, I'm sure.
Good question, but presumably not, hence the new Cruz bill. Anybody know for sure?
A politician push a bill already covered by existing laws to get attention? Nah.... :moil:
Did this move come in response to the state department news brief where it was stated that being a member of ISIS/ISIL was not grounds to revoke a passport?
We need a new bill for that? Is not going of to fight for a known enemy of the US already covered by existing laws?
EXACTLY. Isn't this what we were told things like the Patriot Act were for?
montanadave
09-07-14, 14:50
Not a fan of hastily written legislation by politicians looking to grab headlines by exploiting populist hunger for red meat. Particularly when it involves revoking the citizenship of Americans.
Put these pricks on the known terrorist list. Red flag their passport wherever and whenever it pings the system. Prosecute them under existing laws.
But I don't trust Congress as far as I can throw them. Today it's ISIS. Tomorrow it's Earth First!, or the NRA, or the SPLC, or whatever international/national political organization which has fallen out of favor with the ruling elite.
Natural born United States citizens are citizens for life, unless they voluntarily choose to renounce that citizenship. If the government decides to convict me of treason and stick a needle in my arm, so be it. But I don't want Ted Cruz or any other Washington politician deciding whether I'm a U.S. citizen or not based on my politics or ill-advised life decisions.
Put these pricks on the known terrorist list. Red flag their passport wherever and whenever it pings the system. Prosecute them under existing laws.
I am not a fan of Cruz and Dave's plan seems much better to me.
BoringGuy45
09-07-14, 17:18
A politician push a bill already covered by existing laws to get attention? Nah.... :moil:
Agreed mostly. Now, I'm generally opposed to this bill as I can see just about a million things going wrong with it. We already have treason; it's actually the only criminal law mentioned in the Constitution. However, I'd like to play devil's advocate. Imagine there's an American who converts to radical Islam then goes over to Iraq and joins ISIS. While he declares his intention to overthrow the U.S. government, dissolve the Constitution, and enforce Sharia law on American citizens, he never denounces his U.S. citizenship. He takes part in combat, including engaging American troops and intelligence officers, knowing they are American troops. Then, one night, Delta or DEVGRU hits the camp where this American jihadi is located. Though he is not the target and the team doesn't even know that an American is at the target location, this guy is taken out silently without even having time to resist.
Now, his family sues the governments for wrongful death, as this guy was still an American citizen. The JSOC unit did not kill him in self defense; they simply took him out because he was a sentry. The family has legal standing to claim that their dead relative was denied his constitutional rights and simply carried out a summery execution. They should have offered him a chance to surrender. I can't think of any case law that would defend killing an American citizen on the grounds that the troops did not know that he was a citizen. Now, the media gets wind of it and sensationalizes it: Delta and DEVGRU are not "special mission units" they are death squads that the president sics on anyone who he doesn't like. Now America has finally crossed that line and is executing people without trial. Both the far left and the far right get stirred up. Under pressure, the operative who pulled the trigger is sacrificed and put on trial for 1st degree murder and violation of the jihadi's civil rights. American troops are now hamstrung and can't do any more midnight raids and are forbidden from engaging any enemy troop or terrorist who is not actively shooting at them, as the president says we can't take the chance of accidentally murdering another American without trial.
So, I can understand a bill that emphasizes treason to mean that if you declare yourself an active combatant in any group that openly advocates and participates in the attempted violent overthrow of the U.S. government and the dissolution of the Constitution, you are no longer a citizen; you are an enemy.
All that said, I'm naturally skeptical of any bill like this because it almost always turns against law abiding citizens.
Voodoo_Man
09-07-14, 18:08
We need a new bill for that? Is not going of to fight for a known enemy of the US already covered by existing laws?
No needs to be a bill.
Also this has a lot farther reaching effects if it gets passed.
The whole "domestic terrorist" thing goes our the window when they can just remove your citizenship.
Today it's ISIS. Tomorrow it's Earth First!, or the NRA, or the SPLC, or whatever international/national political organization which has fallen out of favor with the ruling elite.
Are we really going to equate a law form (even if they are a bunch of commies) and the NRA with actual terrorist groups?
montanadave
09-07-14, 19:35
Are we really going to equate a law form (even if they are a bunch of commies) and the NRA with actual terrorist groups?
It's not you or me I'm worried about. You and others have posted on multiple occasions those flyers on domestic terrorism sent out by the BATF and DHS. Everything's black and white, right until it turns gray. There are laws on the books to handle these people without turning a Tail-Gunner Joe wannabe like Ted Cruz loose to start stripping Americans of their citizenship.
No needs to be a bill.
Also this has a lot farther reaching effects if it gets passed.
The whole "domestic terrorist" thing goes our the window when they can just remove your citizenship.
Except it specifically states a "....member of.....a designated foreign terrorist organization....". However, to be sure I'd like the language to be more specific so it CANNOT be construed in questionable ways.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481 covered...
Not really - the very first sentence in your link says "(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—"
What if someone performs one of the listed acts and does not have the intention of relinquishing US nationality? I can hear it now - Sorry I fought with ISIS, but I never intender to relinquish my US nationality.
Not really - the very first sentence in your link says "(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—"
What if someone performs one of the listed acts and does not have the intention of relinquishing US nationality? I can hear it now - Sorry I fought with ISIS, but I never intender to relinquish my US nationality.
Yeah, it's all semantics. That's why I would be specific in how it's spelled out.
It's not you or me I'm worried about. You and others have posted on multiple occasions those flyers on domestic terrorism sent out by the BATF and DHS. Everything's black and white, right until it turns gray. There are laws on the books to handle these people without turning a Tail-Gunner Joe wannabe like Ted Cruz loose to start stripping Americans of their citizenship.
You are in full agreement on that, like I said we have enough of this stupidity and since we went are stuck with the Patriot Act anyway, let's just use those tools.
I understood your point that you were trying for, that these tools can be used against those they were never intended for, and I agree which is why I opposed the Patriot Act when it was first suggested. The only objection I was making was putting the NRA and SPLC in the same group as actual terrorist organizations. To the best of my knowledge, neither has been officially recognized as a "terrorist group" unlike ISIS and Earth First.
Voodoo_Man
09-08-14, 06:08
Except it specifically states a "....member of.....a designated foreign terrorist organization....". However, to be sure I'd like the language to be more specific so it CANNOT be construed in questionable ways.
Its the gov.
It'll work the way I said.
lol
Its the gov.
It'll work the way I said.
lol
Only way would be to delete the word foreign out of the bill, which is the kind of legislative shenanigan you have to watch out for as a bill progresses. It could be misused like it is now but *eventually* you'd win. After how many years of incarceration I don't know, but as it is written the NRA couldn't be declared a "terrorist" organization. Now if they had an international affiliate......(do they?)
There are way too many legal shenanigans that can be pulled to harass political opposition; so why risk it? What if Eric the great or his even lefter leaning successor deemed that the NRA was supporting foreign terrorist organizations by giving them guns or whatever. You are now a me end of an organization that supports foreign terrorist and as such you are supporting foreign terrorists.
Sorry, but to give government more power over us is pretty much the definition of crazy. If people can't see that they will get exactly what they deserve in the end.
montanadave
09-08-14, 09:38
This exercise has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorist attack. It has everything to do with an opportunistic Ted Cruz grabbing some headlines, drafting some shoddy and unnecessary piece of legislation with a dramatic title, and then pointing the finger at the Senate leadership that buries the bill for "being soft on terrorism" and failing in their duty to protect the American public.
It's political theater. Nothing more.
This exercise has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorist attack. It has everything to do with an opportunistic Ted Cruz grabbing some headlines, drafting some shoddy and unnecessary piece of legislation with a dramatic title, and then pointing the finger at the Senate leadership that buries the bill for "being soft on terrorism" and failing in their duty to protect the American public.
It's political theater. Nothing more.
You just described nearly every single political action following 9-11, with respect to both legislation for and against the war.
montanadave
09-08-14, 12:30
You just described nearly every single political action following 9-11, with respect to both legislation for and against the war.
Well, at least it all turned out okay. Oh, right. :suicide2:
This exercise has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorist attack. It has everything to do with an opportunistic Ted Cruz grabbing some headlines, drafting some shoddy and unnecessary piece of legislation with a dramatic title, and then pointing the finger at the Senate leadership that buries the bill for "being soft on terrorism" and failing in their duty to protect the American public.
It's political theater. Nothing more.
Bingo!
They don't need to pass a piece of legislation to extrajudicially drone strike your ass...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.