home

Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Statement On Citizenship Stripping

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:39:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects.

“United States citizenship is a privilege,” she said. “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.”

(Emphasis supplied.) This is incorrect as a legal matter in my view. The 14th Amendment states that:

"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."

Once you have become a citizen (by being born in the United States (as defined by Congress) or having become a naturalized citizen), your citizenship, and the rights the attach to it (for example, the right to vote) are rights that can not be taken from you without due process.

As John Bellinger, a legal adviser to the Bush Administration State Department, notes:

the Lieberman bill “sounds like a draconian solution. I assume the Senate has thought through the constitutional issues but I would want to see what the standards are for stripping someone of their citizenship and what opportunities they would have for notice and to challenge the decision... It certainly seems like a far-reaching step."

I doubt Senator Lieberman has considered these points. And neither has, it seems, the Secretary of State.

Speaking for me only

< Good April Jobs Number: +290K, But Unemployment Rate At 9.9% | Citizenship Stripping Proponents Misunderstand The Sixth Amendment >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Statement On Citizenship Stripping | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yeah, WTF is she talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:45:56 AM EST


    Citizenship by naturalization could (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:39:18 AM EST
    be described as a "privilege."  Citizenship by birth is right.  Both forms of citizenship then confer additional rights.

    Parent
    Getting naturaized is a privilege (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    But a naturalized citizen is as completely a citizen, except for running for President, as a natural born citizen.

    That is no privilege.

    That is a right.

    Parent

    I guess you could read in (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:43:36 AM EST
     "for the naturalized."  But even then I'm not sure what the point is.

    Parent
    she is (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    talking about the law.  People can be stripped of citizenship for attacking this nation, and/or for fighting for another government.  So what is your point?

    Parent
    Seems to me the Times Sq. suspect (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    must have lied in becoming a citizen and could be revoked (with due process) for fraud.

    did he lie, or at the time he received (none / 0) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    citizenship had he not yet been affiliated with some such group or organization?

    Parent
    Looking at the oath, perhaps I typed (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    too quickly:  citizenship oath

    Parent
    there IS a questionnaire (none / 0) (#18)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    that asks about being a member of the Nazi party and about being a member of the Communist party, but I can't seem to find it to link to it. I think there may be one vaguely worded question about terrorism on it, but can't remember exactly.

    that might be the form you're referring to-- I was also. It's part of the application process. John Demjanjuk lied on his, and had his citizenship revoked.

    Parent

    Here is the naturalization Form N-400. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    Not as tight as it could be re "terrorism."  link

    Parent
    That's the one. (none / 0) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    Tighter on nazi party affiliation than terrorism.

    Parent
    Nazi's Only? (none / 0) (#51)
    by norris morris on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    This is  antiquated.

    We really must re-think and addend the laws governing and defining treason in this day and age.

    Defining treason by World WarII standards [ Nazi] needs to be updated to include terrorists and specify what this means.

    Due process is always necessary and judging from all the military trials that have not convicted anyone, it seems that we should try terrorists in courtrooms that  almost always  successfully convict.

    But due process it should be. If guilty I believe we should  stript citizenship from traitors who are attempting to harm us.

    Parent

    The point about Demjanjuk (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    ...is a very good point. The more I think about the current "citizenship stripping" discussion, the more it becomes apparent that it really isn't all one thing or the other. The first statement by Oculus makes a lot of sense.

    Parent
    This whole (none / 0) (#16)
    by robotalk on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    citizenship-based human rights argument is wrongheaded.  Time was, if you were in this country, you had constitutional rights,eg involuntary servitude, due process.  Now this doesn't even occur to people.

    Parent
    you still do have rights (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    just not all the rights of Citizens.  BTW, any of us can be stripped of citizenship if we fight against this nation for some other entity.
    Calling her statement "bizarre" was overly dramatic, particularly since she is right.

    Parent
    False (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    You are pulling nonsense out of your butt in order to defend your diety.

    It is embarrassing to see such fawning in the face of such an obvious gaff by Hillary.

    But, what do I know, please provide support for your statement:

    BTW, any of us can be stripped of citizenship if we fight against this nation for some other entity
    .

    Parent
    "Deity"? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    Speaking of "pulling nonsense out of your butt ..."

    BTW - There are several ways a US citizen can lose his/her citizenship, including joining the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the US.

    Parent

    Please Cite (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    Link is to a morass..

    Parent
    The statute on loss of citizenship (none / 0) (#106)
    by Peter G on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    is 8 U.S.C. 1481, and has been discussed extensively over the past week by BTD, myself, and several others, Squeaky.  Subsection (a)(3) states that a U.S. citizen, even by birth, can be stripped of citizenship for "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States ...."  As BTD has emphasized, however, under Supreme Court decisions interpreting this provision, there must first be a due process hearing, and to prevail the government must prove that the citizen knew the consequences of his/her act and intended to abandon his/her U.S. citizenship by that voluntary conduct.

    Parent
    Yes I Understood That (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    But it does not clarify Hillary Clinton's comments, or appear to support Lieberman's bill as already on the books.

    From what I have read there has to be intent to renounce citizenship. That does not seem to be such a clear cut and easy thing to prove, as Hillary's comments suggest.

    Parent

    It wasn't meant to ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    ... "clarify HC's comments", or to support Lieberman's bill.  You asked for support for TeresainPA's assertion that a US citizen can be stripped of citizenship for fighting against this nation, which you suggested was "pulled out of (her) butt".  I provided it.

    Not a difficult concept.

    Parent

    Not All (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    And I asked for a cite in order to compare it to what Hillary said in support of Lieberman's bill. Hillary gave a personal opinion of how she would like the law to be, not how the law is.

    The context of hillary's remarks is Lieberman's bill, one without any due process that would strip citizens automatically of their citizenship because they, let's say, gave money to a charity that was deemed terrorist.

    That is nonsense, and shows Hillary in an extremely poor light. It was akin to her wiping out Iran remark. She is a hawk, and extremely pro Israel. Leiberman, no doubt, consulted with right wing Israeli extremists, in concocting this bill. Hillary supports the same bunch of fascists, and always has.

    Parent

    I could care less about ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    ... your purpose in requesting the cite.  You asked for a cite supporting her proposition that "any of us can be stripped of citizenship if we fight against this nation for some other entity", which you suggested was "pulled out of her butt".  I provided it, and her assertion was entirely correct.

    As far as Lieberman's bill goes, personally I'm in agreement with Pelosi.  I'm leary about the specifics of any such bill, such as the "material support" provisions, and wouldn't support it unless that was narrowly defined.  I don't have a problem, however, with extending 8 USC 1481 to cover those who, rather than joining another nation's armed forces in fighting against the US, join Al-Quaida and do the same thing.  I also have no problem with HC's statement that naturalized citizens who are serving foreign powers/terrorists and declare allegiance to a terrorist organization are in violation of the oath they took when they decided to become US citizens.  Under these circumstances, the only real issues in my mind are: 1)whether the government can establish that the individual's intent was to relinquish their citizenship (as with 8 USC 1481), and 2)what procedural due process is afforded.  If those issues were addressed satisfactorily, I wouldn't have a problem supporting Lieberman's bill, ...

    ... apart from the fact that his name is on it.

    Parent

    Slippery Slope, imo (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    But I will call you loverman, from now on, and the Lieberman bill the Bedwetter bill.  The Lieberman proposal is garbage, completely unamerican, and a fast track to new McCarthyism, despite what Hillary, and Pelosi say about it.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Mon May 10, 2010 at 07:20:55 AM EST
    Good luck with that.

    Parent
    Odd (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    And oblique way to defend Hillary and Lieberman's statement.

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    Hillary and Lieberman made a joint statement?

    Parent
    Hillary Supports Lieberman's Proposal (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    ANd oculus seems to be providing cover for Hillary (and by association for Lieberman) by stating a theory that is obliquely related to Hillary's statement.

    Where you get that Hillary and Lieberman made a joint statement is beyond reason, imo.  

    Parent

    The final straw. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JamesTX on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    If citizenship is not a right, then what is? Are we finally to the endgame?

    I guess it would be too much to ask, (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:09:03 PM EST
    or expect, that when anyone with any kind of official government status - like Secretary of State Clinton - is asked to weigh in on these proposals, he or she would answer by saying something along the lines of, "I have heard about Senator So-and-So's possible legislation, but before I fire off an opinion, I need to spend some time looking at the law and I should probably speak directly with the Senator.  Citizenship is an important and precious thing, and while it should not be taken for granted by any of us, we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently, and for whatever good intentions we may have, weaken it."

    Very disappointing that Clinton would give Lieberman any credibility, but in some ways not surprising given their history; really just too bad she couldn't have been more, um, diplomatic about her remarks.

    Well We'll See (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    Schumer retracted his statements, although finger to the wind, he first thought loserman's prop was a good one...  

    We'll see where this is going.

    Parent

    Sorry to say that even Boehner spoke (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    more intelligently about the subject. Hard as it is to believe.

    "If they are a U.S. citizen, until they are convicted of some crime, I don't see how you would attempt to take their citizenship away," Boehner said. "That would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution." link


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:06:45 PM EST
    Clear, concise and accurate....

    Shows what can happen when someone just answers honestly without political posturing....

    Parent

    He's an idiot (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    He doesn't know the law apparently and he also is just being political as usual.

    Parent
    Please Ms Legal Scholar (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    Educate us in how Bohner has misstated the law and constitution.

    Parent
    Too easy (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    When Boehner claimed "If they are a U.S. citizen, until they are convicted of some crime, I don't see how you would attempt to take their citizenship away".

    There are already several ways a US citizen can lose their citizenship without being convicted of a crime.

    No need to be a "legal scholar" to figure that out.

    Parent

    I See (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    So Lieberman need not bother with his stupid bill. Is that what you are saying.

    Oh and your link confirms nothing.

    Parent

    What??? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    I know you're a master of misinterpretation, but how could you possibly interpret my comment to mean that "Lieberman need not bother with his stupid bill"?

    BTW - My link proves that Boehner misstated the law when he suggested that it would be unconstitutional to strip a  US citizen of their citizenship until they were convicted of a crime.  Being convicted of a crime is not a prerequisite to being stripped of citizenship,

    Just responding to your request to be educated about how Boehner misstated the law and the Constitution. :)

    Parent

    Of Course It Is (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    That is what due process is all about. And considering that the context of Bohner's remarks was Lieberman's bill, and a response the specific crime of a car bomb, crime of attempting to blow up an airplane Bohner's comment was correct :

    The senator [Lieberman] told Fox News that if American citizens "become affiliated" with a foreign terrorist organization they should be "deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act."

    It appears as if you are defending TeresaInPa comments in that Lieberman's bill is unnecessary because it essentially already exists as law, laws which she supports..  therefore she supports Lieberman, therefore you support Lieberman, and of course a given that both of you support anything Hillary.

    Parent

    Wrong again (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    My comment doesn't address the merits Lieberman's bill, merely your sarcastic request for clarification about how Boehner misstated the law and the Constitution.  Once again, Boehner suggested someone couldn't be stripped of their citizenship until they were convicted of a crime.

    If they are a U.S. citizen, until they are convicted of some crime, I don't see how you would attempt to take their citizenship away.

    TeresainPA called BS on this statement, which it is.  A US citizen can be stripped of citizenship without being convicted of a crime, a concept which does not violate the Constitution.

    It's easy to tell where you're going off the rails ... usually begins with something like "It appears as if you are ..."  Hannity also does that when he interviews people he dislikes.  It's actually fairly convenient, since it makes it quite clear when he's about to misstate/replace the interviewee's statements with his own "interpretation" of their statement.

    As far as the sequential conclusions you draw after that, take an Intro to Logic course and get back to me ...

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    It is off topic.

    The topic is: Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Statement On Citizenship Stripping

    Citizen stripping is Lieberman's proposal.

    If it is on topic, given the context of Bohner's statement  is miles more correct than Hillary's. At least he bows to due process and has by making his comment distanced himself from a McCarthyite campaign.

    Parent

    Try that again, ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun May 09, 2010 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    ... in English.

    Parent
    Hillary was for flag burning amendment too (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    She seems to be actually for such things...

    Parent
    wrong (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:42:29 AM EST
    she did not vote for the flag burning amendment.  Go look it up.

    What is this all about, you guys afraid she is looking better than Obama?  Afraid she might run in 2012.. or just bitter that her polls numbers are and always have been better than his?

    Parent

    Dishonest.... Well Misleading By Gross Omission (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    When Mrs. Clinton took a stand on the matter last year -- co-sponsoring legislation that would have criminalized the desecration of the American flag even as she opposed a constitutional amendment that sought to achieve the same end -- she was pilloried from the left. Editorial boards criticized her for political maneuvering, the political commentator Arianna Huffington attacked her for "stars, stripes and triangulation" and even some of her supporters quietly wondered why she had gone out on a limb on such a controversial issue.

    On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton played a leading role in the flag-burning debate once again, co-sponsoring a measure similar to her previous one as an alternative to the constitutional amendment that was about to come up for a vote in the Senate.

    "Fortunately, we have an opportunity to protect our flag in a bipartisan and constitutional way," Mrs. Clinton said in her floor speech.

    The measure, brought to the floor by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, failed, 64 to 36, minutes before the proposed amendment fell short of the 67 votes it needed.

    NYT

    Parent

    No, prior to this comment (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    on extra-judicial stripping of citizenship, I was looking forward to supporting her in a run for the Presidency--in 2016.

    Her hawkish views on Iraq appear not to be an anomaly and do give concern....

    Parent

    think again (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:36:49 AM EST
    and before you just blindly assume that BTD is correct you should do some reading of your own.
    She was right, any of us can be stripped of our citizenship... it is a privilege and not a right given certain circumstances.  

    Parent
    Bizarre is right (none / 0) (#2)
    by addy on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    can't wrap my mind around that one.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by norris morris on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    She's for extending the law regarding terrorists.

    This is a terrible thing?

    Are we all this clueless about what's happening regarding terrorist acts against us?

    Treason cannot be tolerated and revoking citizenship is currently only possible through due process. Our Nazi & Communist loyalty questions in citizenship applications should be extended as well.

    Stripping citizenship is only a symbolic act after the fact of proven treason. But the meaning of citizenship needs some updating.

    Parent

    Hmm ... you just say ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    "your citizenship, and the rights the attach to it (for example, the right to vote) are rights that can not be taken from you without due process."

    So given the right due process, which is defined by LAWS passed by the CONGRESS, a person's citizenship can be stripped?

    SO in principle, a court CAN strip a person's of its citizenship, if there is a law allowing the specific circumstances? Correct?

    For example, treason is such an offense, right?

    If so, can't one of those terrorist offense (say, convicted of terrorism .. attempted bombing of a city) be made like treason with the penalty of stripping one's citizenship?

    Of course they can (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    After due process.

    Parent
    Ok ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    so we are arguing about what is due process in this case, not whether it is legal to strip a convicted "terrorist" his/her citizenship.

    I just want to make it clear.

    Parent

    Arguing a lot of things actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    But that is one of them.

    A convicted terrorist can be subject to a citizenship stripping process certainly.

    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    where did Hillary say it could be done without due process?

    Parent
    Treason & Citizenship (none / 0) (#56)
    by norris morris on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    I would hope that those who plot against us and those who enact acts of terrorism are subject to loss of citizenship if found guilty through due process.

    The Rosenbergs were put to death. Other traitors from the CIA, etc. who harmed us are in prison for life. Nazi's and Communists were not permitted to become citizens, and if found lying I believe citizenship could be revoked.

    Military courts have done very poorly in proving their cases. But anyone found guilty of treason through due process in our courts should be stripped of citizenship ASAP.

    However I do not know the law regarding treason, and  there is  doubt that it may be treated separately by the law.

    Parent

    but the point is NOT ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    that treason is rare & hard to proof. The point is that there are legal precedent to strip someone's citizenship based on conviction of a specific offense.

    There is nothing barring congress to expand the list of offenses including terrorism activities.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:12:33 AM EST
    While many have been commuted, there have been more people convicted of treason than just Burr.

    From Wiki;

    Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, convicted of treason and sentenced to hanging; pardoned by George Washington; see Whiskey Rebellion.

    Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion; released in 1845; civil rights restored in 1851; verdict annulled in 1854.

    John Brown, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1859 for attempting to organize armed  resistance to slavery.

    Aaron Dwight Stevens, took part in John Brown's raid and was executed for treason against Virginia.
    William Bruce Mumford 1862 convicted of treason and hanged for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.
    David Owen Dodd 1864 hanged for treason as a Confederate spy during the American Civil War.
    Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt in 1865 hanged for treason and conspiracy for the Lincoln assassination and conspiracy - by military tribunal.
    Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose" convicted 1949. Subsequently pardoned by President Gerald Ford.

    Herbert Hans Haupt German-born naturalized U.S. citizen, in 1942 was convicted of treason and executed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy (his son) and for espionage.

    Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Force pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944.
    Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence.

    Mildred Gillars, "Axis Sally," convicted of treason on March 8, 1949, served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence.
    Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason in 1952, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan.


    Parent

    From what other legal bloggers (none / 0) (#5)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:53:39 AM EST
    have been saying, the Supreme Ct. has ruled that a person must evidence specific intent to relinquish citizenship before it can be stripped.  Everyone seems to be reading Peter Spiro on the subject.

    Not my area, so I don't know.

    wait .. question .... (none / 0) (#7)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    I read somewhere that the stripping of the citizenship does NOT have to be voluntary (i.e. with consent of the person) if he committed certain kind of offense (such as treason).

    Is that correct or not?

    Parent

    I'm glad they are reading someone (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    But I wrote this basically the other day:

    "Intent to relinquish would be pretty hard to establish, Shahzad's case included.  (About the only case that would be a slam-dunk for the State Department would be this one: a guy who shreds his passport on YouTube.)  That's the first way in which it would be ineffective: you just end up with another layer of litigation, about the last thing that anti-terror policies need after almost a decade of up-the-courts, down-the-courts delay."

    Parent

    How does this fit in? (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:01:20 AM EST
    Last line in the article:

    Senate aides said that it would apply only to acts undertaken overseas.

    Would that be what they are using to 'prove' the need to revoke citizenship, or terrorist acts not in the US?

    Parent

    Next time get someone at (none / 0) (#11)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    The Volokh Conspiracy to link to you and announce you are an expert in this field and everyone will be discussing you.

    and yes I remember you wrote generally about this.

    Parent

    Enlighten me, please (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    The earlier reference about Demjanjuk caught my attention. Many supported the notion and reality of stripping and deporting WWII criminals, etc....So, what if due process establishes some form of fraud and that finding is coupled with recognized policy for the war on terror...how does that play out?

    Parent
    Intent? (none / 0) (#57)
    by norris morris on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    Mind reading?  The guy has his fingerprints [presumably] on the bombs and explosive materials, and all other items, and admits to this, and we have to prove INTENT in this circumstance?

    A poor understanding or conclusion of treason and its punishments.

    Intent needs to be proven when someone has his hands on the dagger in the chest of his victim?

    Parent

    How do you know the hands on (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    the dagger aren't there to pull it out?  :)

    Parent
    Consistent with (none / 0) (#14)
    by robotalk on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    all our other civil and human rights breaches, this hopefully leads to an International human rights convention.

    The issue is too important to leave in the hands of piss poor American politicians and jurists who just don't get that human rights transcend citizenship and borders.

    in this case (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    the human right you are defending is the right to blow up hundreds of Americans and visitors in the name of some other Nation?  I don't get it.  When was terrorism a human right?

    Parent
    Citizenship is a priveledge... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    does she mean like driving...too many speeding tickets and you're outta the America club?  Good grief these people are frightening.

    I was half-joking when I was talking about revoking my citizenship...now its down to 1/4-joking...being associated with these clowns, much less represented by them...its just too much for the soul to bear.  

    BTW...native born don't take no oath, I sure never did...its one of the things I always liked about the joint..no loyalty oaths.  But I'm guessing that might change too if certain wanna-be tyrants get their way.

    you read my mind (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    I hate that 'privilege not a right' language anyway, on any issue. I'm disappointed in Hillary for even using that old linguistic trope.

    Parent
    They can't let Team R... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:35:31 AM EST
    out "tough guy" them...it's all such a joke.

    Some arsehole tries to kill people...you arrest them, you give them a fair trial in good old fashioned regular court, you convict them and send them to prison...wtf is so hard?  Why must every moron with explosive materials be treated like the greatest threat to civilization since the plague, requiring changes to our sacred protections for the accused?  I just don't get it...maybe there is something in the water.

    Parent

    you can not see the difference (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    between an act of terrorism and someone going postal?  Really?

    Parent
    you make no sense (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    she did not say, you can be stripped of citizenship if you have been stripped of some other unrelated privilege.
    You can be stripped of your citizenship if you attack this country on behalf of another nation or entity....eg, terrorism.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    Please cite

    Parent
    Citizenship is not a Driver's License (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    Citizens born here or naturalized have the same rights.

    Revoking citizenship is such a red herring side issue to me. I don't understand the point.

    Does this mean (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    That she is hinting that the administration supports Lieberman's bill and this is a test ballon?  I can't think of another reason for this bizarre statement.  She should know better....

    What does this part of the 14th mean? (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:37:02 AM EST
    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
    That proviso respects international law (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    by exempting the children, born here, of foreign diplomats.  Ambassadors, etc., are in the United States as representatives of a foreign sovereign and remain under the laws and protection of that sovereign (think, "diplomatic immunity").

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:44:44 AM EST
    I believe it also included indian tribes, for basically the same reasons. But they were granted citizenship by Congress in due course.

    Parent
    I think you are right. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:04:14 AM EST
    I think the issues relating to the hundreds of thousands (maybe more?) of Native Americans and newly freed slaves were the main reasons for the amendment, and the half-dozen or so children born here of foreign diplomats was much less of an issue.

    Regardless, if there is a mechanism by which one may revoke or otherwise lose their citizenship, it would seem that this phrase should be the core of that process, no?

    Parent

    It most likely refers (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:14:06 PM EST
    to the English Common Law concept of "natural born subjects" that goes back hundreds of years.....

    Two major exceptions that were described as those who were not subject to the sovereign (and thus not natural born subjects):

      1.  Diplomats
      2.  Invading Armies

    The U.S. v. Wong case decided in 1898 goes over all these issues in great historcial detail.

    Parent

    And those in open warfare (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:08:47 PM EST
    against the U.S.--such as an invading army....

    Parent
    yes, an invading army (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    which could/ perhaps should be extended to terrorist groups.  
    Our laws have to be able to keep up with the new reality.  Terrorism is an attack on this nation as sure as any invading army, and to continue to refuse to see that leaves us unable to defend ourselves...which of course is what Islamic fundamentalists are depending on.  
    We are the people who won our independence for "fighting dirty" according to accepted war "practices" according to the British.  Is it so hard to imagine that the "Nation of Islam" as they call themselves is not also taking advantage of our old ways of thinking about war?


    Parent
    You should read the Wong case (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    It is more of an occupuying army than invading Army....

    The idea is that the government has lost the power to govern--that another entity controls the country that has been invaded...

    The formulation is that someone who is born here, who is not subect to the laws of the country or sovereign, is not a citizen.....The terrorists acts of murder or even war do not take over the government and cause it to cease to function....

    Your argument is found on the far fringes of the right.  You know all the illegal immigrants are viewed as an invading army by many on the right too.  And there are many more of them, and they are said to intefere more with the functioning of the government than the terrorists....

    That you adopt this right wing stance to defend a very troubling statement is indeed troubling.....It is just a blind defense....

    Up until this comment, I was feeling quite comfortable with Hillary's views--I was hoping she would run again for President and contemplated campaigning for her....But she has deep-seated views on certain things that strike me as very objectionable....

    Parent

    Not Following The Thread? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    But you are on a rant.... so why bother paying attention..

    Parent
    What is current law regarding (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    revocation of citizenship?  Under what circumstances.  What due process is afforded?

    See my previosu posts (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    and the links therein.

    Parent
    "Precious right. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    "denaturalization

    High burden of proof on government.  Judicial process.  

    Parent

    More from USCIS on denaturalization (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    procedure and burden of proof:

    link

    Parent

    Not only do I think that Hillary's statement (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    is wrong, I find it confusing based on Gibbs recent statement.


    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that, as far as he knows, there isn't a single official inside the White House who backs Sen. Joseph Lieberman's (I-Conn.) proposal to strip the citizenship of Americans linked to terrorist groups.

    Asked about the controversial idea during Thursday's briefing, the press secretary didn't get too far in the weeds, save to say: "I have not heard anybody inside the administration who is supportive of that." link

     
    Hillary did not say (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    she agreed with Lieberman  She said there was already provisions for stripping people of citizenship and she did NOT say anything about no due process. In fact her statement was disagreeing with Lieberman for the need for such legislation.
    But then her vote for the IWR was also turned in to a vote for war by those bound and determined to hate her.  I am guessing there is a lack of comprehension on some people's part about what she actually said in both cases.  It's convenient I suppose.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Hard to misinterpret that, but you are on a roll here..

    Disagreeing with Lieberman????  She spoke positively about his proposed legislation and agreed to study the bill.

    Parent

    i must say, i am disappointed (none / 0) (#39)
    by cpinva on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    in sect. clinton. for such an accomplished attorney to make such a clearly wrong statement in public is, at best, disconcerting. she of all people knows better.

    Personal Opinion (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    Not legal, no SOS..

    "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."

    Still, not a good thing, imo. But she has always been rather hawkish, so I am not surprised by this.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    I'm a U.S. citizen and I never had to swear an oath to become one.  I simply took a first breath and cried when the doctor slapped me.

    Parent
    Agreed, not a good thing, at all. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    Besides, it is my personal opinion that the Secretary of State does not get to have a personal opinion in the same way you and I do.  Secretary Clinton's voice carries the weight of her office despite disclaimers.  The situation offered Mrs. Clinton an opportunity, if she decided to speak out at this time at all, to provide information about the state department's responsibilities in this area rather than get needlessly and prematurely embroiled in Lieberman's newest made-for-TV hobby horse.

    Parent
    Think Obama and Crowley/Gates. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:22:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:40:35 PM EST
    What a poor analogy, imo. Obama knew Gates and opined based on that knowledge as well as the facts of the case that were on record.

    Obama was asked about the arrest of Gates, who is his friend, at the end of a nationally televised news conference on health care Wednesday night.

    "I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three -- what I think we know separate and apart from this incident -- is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."

    Hillary vowed to take a hard look at the bill, but opined that she thought that it was a good idea.

    I fail to see how this compares to Obama's Gates Gate remarks.

     

    Parent

    As I'm sure you recall, Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    publicly rued the day he stated the the Cambpridge PD acted "stupidly."  Followed by beer on the WH lawn.

    Parent
    Rued? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:58:21 PM EST
    Obama stuck to his guns regarding the content of his comments. The fact that he said that the police acted stupidly, was accurate, imo.

    Hillary did not make any comparable remarks that could be construed as personal attacks in her comments about the bill. She stated her personal opinion, as other have, and vowed to look into the content as she thought it was a good thing.

    Also this is a bill that would be of interest to the State Department. We will see if she changes her mind about it, once she has more information, like Schumer did.

    Parent

    President Obama June 2009: (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    link

    "Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently."

    "My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve it the way the wanted to resolve it," Obama added.



    Parent
    Rued? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    "calibrated those words differently". lol

    He did not say that the Cambridge police were stupid, or that Crowley was stupid, but that they acted stupidly, which I am sure to this day he believes to be true. The fact that many believed that he was name calling, was incorrect, therefore "calibrated" rather than 'was wrong'.

    Besides, even if Obama took back everything with a big mea culpa, I still do not see how this comment is analogous to Hillary's  opinion about Loserman's Bill.

    It does not, in anyway, waver from her positions regarding the WOT. She is as hawkish as Lieberman.

    Parent

    Which, I suppose, is why she voted (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:01:19 PM EST
    "nay" on FISA revise.

    Parent
    Oh, I See (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    Between your love for BTD and your love for Hillary your head must be exploding... lol

    Parent
    Exploding like your arguments :) (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:17:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Awwww (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    How sweet, another rescue job by MT for poor little defenseless oculus..

    Don't know what she would do without you.  

    Parent

    Merely an observation (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 10, 2010 at 06:19:48 AM EST
    Rescue oculus?  I'm much more selfish than that.  As if she needs it.  I like to stick with real issues though.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    I thought it was becoming a habit of yours.

    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:12:15 AM EST
    If I say you are acting like an a$$hole it is not the same as calling you an a$$hole and I haven't really been trolling?

    Parent
    must be painful (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    to be so wrong about someone that you have to plug your ears and sing la la la , rather than try to understand what they really said.
    Hillary was neither supporting Lieberman, nor did she vote for the war in Iraq.  And BTW, she didn't vote for FISA, Obama did and she did not support Lieberman for his last senate race...but Obama did.
    Are you misinformed or trying to misinform others? Just curious.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:35:09 AM EST
    Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.


    Parent
    what nonsense (none / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    she has not always been anymore hawkish than most democrats.  She is certainly not more hawkish than Obama.  lol

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    I said nothing that compares her to other democrats, or in particular Obama. Your knickers are really in a twist, so much so that you are unable to read what commenters are writing here.

    Parent
    Not more hawkish (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    than Obama and other Democrats.

    And that fact is supposed to make her some sort of visionary gold standard for future leaders and policy makers?

    Btw, If she keeps tap dancing and saber rattling for the hard-right board of AIPAC much longer, she may eventually have to start thinking about taking that show to Vegas..

    Parent

    Bunch of effing morons.. (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:27:45 PM EST
    lets adopt the most hyper-belligerent policy toward Iran possible - that will insure that they attempt to obtain a deterrent - and then publicly assume the stance of commanding the righteous, moral high ground and wanting to "protect the world" (while still reserving the right to maintain 10,000 war heads and call all the shots.)

    Parent
    Times Square Suspect (none / 0) (#41)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    As to whether the Times Square bombing suspect "lied to get his citizenship", the Pakistani Journalist Ahmed Rashid, writing in of all places the New York Daily News makes a point I haven't seen made anywhere else.  Faisal Shazahd is the son of a retired Vice Air Marshall of the Pakistani Air Force.  He is a blue blood member of Pakistan's elite.  According to Rashid:

    The military has ruled Pakistan for half its existence and the sons and daughters of many senior officers have especially benefited from U.S. largesse to win scholarships in the U.S. and then settle down there. They never seem to have problems gaining green cards or citizenship. But then they are mostly professionals who never dabble in Islamic militancy.

    I seriously doubt that Mr. Shazahd had to lie about much at all in order to obtain his citizenship. Of course, determining whether he did or did not lie would be a factual determination that would have to be made subject to all the due process rights accorded to American citizens, so I don't know what his lying about himself on his citizenship application would actually get Lieberman, Clinton and their ilk.

    What is the oath that naturalized citizens take? (none / 0) (#46)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    I hadn't realized the oath covered so much territory:

    The Oath of Allegiance:

        "I hereby declare, on oath,

        that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

        that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

        that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

        that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

        that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

    Link here.  http://tinyurl.com/3y9rrdw

    Does this mean my husband (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:52:55 PM EST
    can't work for NATO forces proper without us losing our citizenship?  I wonder.  Is the 1/28th of him sworn to the U.S. in conflict with the other 27/28ths of him under such conditions :)  Looks like I'm stuck with crappy healthcare forever then :)  His U.S. citizenship means too much to him.

    Not quite as cut (none / 0) (#69)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    and dried as all that, MT, with the North Atlantic Treaty and other ancillary treaties. NATO itself can be viewed as an extension of the US.

    Parent
    It can be (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:16:07 AM EST
    but not always

    Parent
    she is right (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    did she say anything about "without due process"?  If not, that is just a strawman argument on your part.  And I guess you do know that if a citizen, born or naturalized goes to fight for a foreign government, they can be stripped of their citizenship.. even those born in the USA.

    She seems to be correct.

    She Is Speaking Positively About Lieberman's Bill (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    Which I gather by your frothing here, you also support. Git them furriners...

    Oh, and don't forget to look under your bed, those sneaky furriners are everywhere...

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Statement On Citizenship Stripping | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment