Dems Want Terrorists To Keep U.s. Citizenship

[OriginalShroom]

Unbelievable. .. A couple of weeks ago I said this would happen.... but I had honestly thought enough Dems would set aside politics long enough for this to get through..

I was wrong.


Senate Democrats Block Ted Cruz Bill Revoking U.S. Citizenship of Terrorists

Molon Labe

 

[TheOldSchool]

I believe the argument was that more time is needed to weigh the significant constitutional issues this raises. Which, as this was brought forward by crazy Ted Cruz, is probably a good thing.

You do know what the constitution is right?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hey why don't we pass a couple of new Patriot Acts? Right cons???

If you don't want a bunch of new Patriot Acts then YOU MUST HATE AMERICA!!!! Right guys?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dems Want Terrorists To Keep U.s. Citizenship


This fails as a straw man fallacy, as you seek to contrive and propagate a lie that misrepresents you opponents' position.


Opposition to the bill is justified and warranted, as the proposed legislation is likely un-Constitutional, violating citizens' rights to due process:


'[T]he crime of taking up arms against the United States is already covered in no less a document than the Constitution. Unfortunately for Cruz and others looking for a quick fix against ISIS and other groups, the founders made it extremely difficult to prosecute an American citizen of treason. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” Article III of the Constitution reads. “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The decision to very narrowly define treason was on purpose, McGill professor of American history Jason Opal told NPR last year at the height of the Edward Snowden drama. Then the debate was over whether the former NSA contractor fit the definition of treason, one that the founders were very careful to differentiate from the British version. “Under British common law, statutory law and legislative decree, treason can mean anything from sleeping with the wife of the eldest son of the king and thereby interfering in the royal descent,” Opal explained. “It could mean counterfeiting. And most pertinent, it could mean some association with rioting.”

Anything below the treason threshold has been difficult to be enough for the U.S. government to strip Americans of their citizenship. This has been aided by a 1967 Supreme Court ruling — Afroyim v. Rusk — that “ruled that under the 14th amendment, U.S. citizens cannot be involuntarily stripped of their citizenship.” As of now, there are only loopholes to Afroyim. The first is that government has had to be able to prove that an American joined a foreign army with the intention of relinquishing their citizenship. The other is that under the law, it’s possible to lose one’s citizenship by “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.”'

Both of those examples are a far cry from the can of worms that Cruz’s bill would potentially open in the interest of preventing the 12 people currently fighting with ISIS from launching a hypothetical ISIS attack on the United States.

The Hidden Dangers Of Ted Cruz s New Anti-ISIS Bill ThinkProgress



Cruz's proposed legislation represents the same reckless disregard for citizens' liberty and freedom that brought about the likes of the 'Patriot' Act.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

This should help Democrats in the upcoming senate elections. Not!

 

[TheOldSchool]

This should help Democrats in the upcoming senate elections. Not!

You know what we need? Another department of Homeland Security. It'll make us way safer. Let's go elect some conservatives America

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

This should help Democrats in the upcoming senate elections. Not!

You know what we need? Another department of Homeland Security. It'll make us way safer. Let's go elect some conservatives America

I like your attitude. We do indeed need more conservatives in Washington. And here I thought you were a moron.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This should help Democrats in the upcoming senate elections. Not!

You know what we need? Another department of Homeland Security. It'll make us way safer. Let's go elect some conservatives America

I like your attitude. We do indeed need more conservatives in Washington. And here I thought you were a moron.

Ya bro let's put a camera in every room of every house! We need more Patriot Acts!!!

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

This should help Democrats in the upcoming senate elections. Not!

You know what we need? Another department of Homeland Security. It'll make us way safer. Let's go elect some conservatives America

I like your attitude. We do indeed need more conservatives in Washington. And here I thought you were a moron.

Ya bro let's put a camera in every room of every house! We need more Patriot Acts!!!

There's already a camera in damn near every room, office, building, stadium, store, and anywhere else we spend our time. There're cameras 200 miles out in space that can read your license plate. Privacy is an illusion. Just for the record, I detest the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This should help Democrats in the upcoming senate elections. Not!

You know what we need? Another department of Homeland Security. It'll make us way safer. Let's go elect some conservatives America

I like your attitude. We do indeed need more conservatives in Washington. And here I thought you were a moron.

Ya bro let's put a camera in every room of every house! We need more Patriot Acts!!!

There's already a camera in damn near every room, office, building, stadium, store, and anywhere else we spend our time. There're cameras 200 miles out in space that can read your license plate. Privacy is an illusion. Just for the record, I detest the Department of Homeland Security.

I bet you loved it back in 2002

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I bet you loved it back in 2002

Hmmm...no, I think I pretty much detested democrats back then as much as I do today.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Unbelievable. .. A couple of weeks ago I said this would happen.... but I had honestly thought enough Dems would set aside politics long enough for this to get through..

I was wrong.


Senate Democrats Block Ted Cruz Bill Revoking U.S. Citizenship of Terrorists

Molon Labe

Molon Labe indeed.

You want their citizenship and civil rights, conservatards? Come and take them. They'll be waiting for you in Iraq and Syria.

 

[LiberalMedia]

I bet you loved it back in 2002

Hmmm...no, I think I pretty much detested democrats back then as much as I do today.

So the Patriot Act was a 100% Democratic invention and accomplishment then, huh?

 

[I.P.Freely]

You Americans are so black and white when indulging your ego's.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I bet you loved it back in 2002

Hmmm...no, I think I pretty much detested democrats back then as much as I do today.

So the Patriot Act was a 100% Democratic invention and accomplishment then, huh?

It doesn't matter who invented it. It's a monstrous bureaucracy now, and history has taught us how easy those things are to disassemble. There was an interesting piece on Al Jazeera last night about how American women have swung the polls regarding this country's overall acceptance of such institutions.

They had NO problem with heightened security in the US following 9/11, but that support waned over the years until the past year or so, with a world apparently going crazy and the fear of Muslim terror at home. The democrats have lost 6% of their female base and that has the DNC concerned about the upcoming senate elections. They know they could lose control of both houses. Women want strength -republicans- in charge in times that threaten, not liberals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dems Want Terrorists To Keep U.s. Citizenship


This fails as a straw man fallacy, as you seek to contrive and propagate a lie that misrepresents you opponents' position.


Opposition to the bill is justified and warranted, as the proposed legislation is likely un-Constitutional, violating citizens' rights to due process:


'[T]he crime of taking up arms against the United States is already covered in no less a document than the Constitution. Unfortunately for Cruz and others looking for a quick fix against ISIS and other groups, the founders made it extremely difficult to prosecute an American citizen of treason. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” Article III of the Constitution reads. “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The decision to very narrowly define treason was on purpose, McGill professor of American history Jason Opal told NPR last year at the height of the Edward Snowden drama. Then the debate was over whether the former NSA contractor fit the definition of treason, one that the founders were very careful to differentiate from the British version. “Under British common law, statutory law and legislative decree, treason can mean anything from sleeping with the wife of the eldest son of the king and thereby interfering in the royal descent,” Opal explained. “It could mean counterfeiting. And most pertinent, it could mean some association with rioting.”

Anything below the treason threshold has been difficult to be enough for the U.S. government to strip Americans of their citizenship. This has been aided by a 1967 Supreme Court ruling — Afroyim v. Rusk — that “ruled that under the 14th amendment, U.S. citizens cannot be involuntarily stripped of their citizenship.” As of now, there are only loopholes to Afroyim. The first is that government has had to be able to prove that an American joined a foreign army with the intention of relinquishing their citizenship. The other is that under the law, it’s possible to lose one’s citizenship by “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.”'

Both of those examples are a far cry from the can of worms that Cruz’s bill would potentially open in the interest of preventing the 12 people currently fighting with ISIS from launching a hypothetical ISIS attack on the United States.

The Hidden Dangers Of Ted Cruz s New Anti-ISIS Bill ThinkProgress



Cruz's proposed legislation represents the same reckless disregard for citizens' liberty and freedom that brought about the likes of the 'Patriot' Act.

Slowly and carefully explain to me the Constitutional right of the President to order drone attacks on American citizens that were never even charged with a crime? If he was legally able to do that then I see no problem taking citizenship from people that voluntarily join an organization with a stated goal of attacking the US Government. It is called treason.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I see the usual suspects are for allowing Terrorists to be U.S. citizens, able to enter the country freely to perform terrorists acts here.

Perhaps if they realized they are putting their own family member lives at risk.

 

[LiberalMedia]

I bet you loved it back in 2002

Hmmm...no, I think I pretty much detested democrats back then as much as I do today.

So the Patriot Act was a 100% Democratic invention and accomplishment then, huh?

It doesn't matter who invented it.

OK. So, just for informational purposes then, what political party did the Patriot Act come out of when it was proposed as a bill in Congress?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I bet you loved it back in 2002

Hmmm...no, I think I pretty much detested democrats back then as much as I do today.

So the Patriot Act was a 100% Democratic invention and accomplishment then, huh?

It doesn't matter who invented it.

OK. So, just for informational purposes then, what political party did the Patriot Act come out of when it was proposed as a bill in Congress?

Who cares. since 2007 the Dems controlled Congress Since 2009 they controlled the President. Care to explain why they did not get rid of it in all those years?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I bet you loved it back in 2002

Hmmm...no, I think I pretty much detested democrats back then as much as I do today.

So the Patriot Act was a 100% Democratic invention and accomplishment then, huh?

It doesn't matter who invented it.

OK. So, just for informational purposes then, what political party did the Patriot Act come out of when it was proposed as a bill in Congress?

Further when the Patriot act was proposed There were only 49 Republican Senators.