Northern Gaijin has uncovered the following disturbing information:
Just to make your day, a new bill was introduced on January 12, 2012 which allows the US government to terminate the citizenship of any American who “supports hostilities” against the US government. Of course, “supports” and “hostilities” are not defined nor is any mention of conviction so this is an extrajudicial elimination of citizenship for any American which the government decides is a threat. No lawyer. No trail. No constitutional rights. Someone makes an accusation and you’re history. And to what other country can you go? It’s called the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166/S1698) and on first reading is very cryptic but if you follow the links and analyse the logic then it becomes clear why Obama said that he wouldn’t use the previous bill (HR 1867) which he signed on New Year’s Eve on US citizens. He can nail anyone with this! There is a mention of hostilities being subject to the rule of law but the decision can’t be rebutted within the context of the situation. Here’s the official video:
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!
This is worse than the Patriot Act, folks. This is worse than Guantanamo. Now we have to agree that Obama is purposefully trying to lose the elections.
I don’t even know what to say about this. It’s just too bizarre. Is this really happening?
Clarissa's Blog 
Time for Obama to get another Nobel Peace Prize.
LikeLike
Oh yes. Let’s just give it to him now before he starts bombing Iran to earn it.
LikeLike
Unless you are a dual citizen like me, and were targeted for this, you would become a “stateless” person. They have practically no rights.
It would appear that, right now, Americans are going to have to gear up for a fight for the soul of their country, or lose it forever.
LikeLike
That was my question, too. In case something happens, I can always go back to Canada. Where will other people go?
LikeLike
It gives new meaning to the word “homeless.”
Frightening.
LikeLike
You do realize that drawing parallels between your government and the Führer is exactly the kind of hostility they are talking about? You could try to go for political asyl here, though I have to tell you that we aren’t that fond of nazi conparisons either!
Btw, I looked if Merkel could pull shit like that. Thankfully, she can not. There is a law in our Basic Law that prevents taking citizenship except when aquired through fraud.
LikeLike
NG is Canadian, so this is not his government.
LikeLike
Oh, okay then. 😀
LikeLike
In my senior high school history class we were talking about how much the president’s actions resembled the Tonkin Gulf Crisis and the Vietnam War. Now it appears we’re back to 1950’s-style McCarthyism. Kinda feels like time travel.
LikeLike
Tim. Good point about the last reference in German- Godwin’s Law or Leo Strauss’ Reductio ad Hitlerum which is an association fallacy. Actually I was thinking about the Unitary Executive concept with its physical embodiment in the presidential signing statement but more about that later. How about asylum in Canada for people affected by this proposed law (HR 3166)?
“Canada has obliged itself to protect genuine refugees, that is, not to send them back to persecution. People who get to Canada on their own can claim refugee protection at any border point, or inside Canada, at a Canadian Immigration Visa Office.”
http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-immigration-refugee-status.html
A stateless person may replace his nationality with country of habitual residency on his refugee application form so we could be looking at a new underground railway modelled after the one that existed in the States post Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 where slaves from the southern plantations travelled to Canada. Now I know why they want to build a fence on America’s northern border.
I also have to make a correction on the time frame. This proposed law first showed up on the radar in May of 2011, disappeared, made a short reappearance in October of 2011, and finally went under the radar until January of 2012. No coverage by any of the mass media during this entire period of course with the exception of one interview of Congressman Dean by MSNBC.
LikeLike
This is a very big reason why I support Ron Paul. He is the only candidate out there that outright opposes all of these acts and you can bet your ass he would veto this.
LikeLike
Has he opposed the Patriot Act and Guantanamo?
LikeLike
Yes, he originally voted against it and helped pass legislation to weaken it. He is a strong critic of torture and Guantanamo.
LikeLike
whoa.
if i understand this correctly this bill was introduced. so help me here please : when/how will this become a law ?
LikeLike
Did you catch in the video where he said terrorism was a greater threat than any other to the US?
Someone failed US History.
LikeLike
I happen to believe that measures like this one pose a far greater threat to the US than terrorism. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
Tim: Good point about the last reference in German of my previous comment- this is an example of Godwin’s Law or Leo Strauss’ Reductio ad Hitlerum which is an association fallacy. Actually I was thinking with respect to the “Leader” about the Unitary Executive concept of American governance with its physical embodiment in the presidential signing statement but more about that later. How about asylum in Canada for those affected by this proposed law (HR 3166/ S1698) which is currently in committee?
“Canada has obliged itself to protect genuine refugees, that is, not to send them back to persecution. People who get to Canada on their own can claim refugee protection at any border point, or inside Canada, at a Canadian Immigration Visa Office.”
http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-immigration-refugee-status.html
A stateless person may replace his nationality with the country of habitual residency on his Canadian refugee application form so we could consider as a solution a new underground railway modelled on the one that existed in the States after Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 where slaves from the southern plantations travelled in secret to Canada. Now I know why they want to build a fence and fly drones on America’s northern border.
After further study, a correction also has to be made on the time frame for this bill. This proposed law first showed up on the media radar in May of 2011 with a Boston Globe story and one interview of Congressman Dean by MSNBC (http://youtu.be/-Y8zRYzWsbU), disappeared, made a brief reappearance in October of 2011, and finally went under the radar until January of 2012. No coverage by any of the mass media after May.
In the fore mentioned MSNBC interview there are a couple of intentional duplicities. The interviewer says that “This would essentially take away citizenship from those convicted of working with terror groups.” To which Congressman Dean responds, “First it’s true. (Referring to the previous statement) Essentially allowing the State Department to issue a certificate of loss of nationality against… (those) who take up arms against this country.” The Interviewer repeats “after a conviction. “ To which Congressman Dean replies “after an investigation… the burden of proof would be on the State Department. “
First the act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:s1698🙂 adds a new paragraph (8) to the seven paragraphs in Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) subsection (a). Paragraph 7 does have the requirement of judicial process:
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
; However, this applies solely to paragraph 7 and not to the new paragraph 8 created by this bill. A certificate from the State Department is the product of an executive decision required by the “shall” at the beginning of Section 349 and not a judicial review.
Secondly the Congressman states that the burden of proof would be on the State Department; however, the bill does not change subsection (b) of Section 349 which states:
(b)Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
Ref.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
LikeLike
NG: your comments went to the Span box initially and I only noticed now. Sorry! Thank you for researching this important story. I see very little outrage being generated on this subject right now and this confuses me. Of course, the language of the bill is purposefully confusing and hard for a layperson to untangle. However, just the video itself that you provided is pretty egregious in itself.
LikeLike
“I see very little outrage being generated on this subject right now and this confuses me.”
There is little outrage because it was signed by a Democratic President. Had it been a republican in office, I can assure you the knives would be out in the media. Just further evidence of the ‘left wing’ bias in the media, save for John Stewart. (He did a great piece on “The Daily Show” a couple of days after it was signed into law).
LikeLike
I don’t remember a whiff of outrage over the Patriot Act, though.
LikeLike
Then you weren’t paying attention very closely. There was enormous outrage – editorials calling Bush Jr the next Hitler and similar hyperbolic exclamations. It was enormously disingenuous, and served only to carve people into the for/against camps, rather than any legitimate analysis of the Act.
LikeLike
Was that in the Canadian media or the US too? I won’t deny that I might have missed the outrage.
LikeLike
There was outrage on both sides of the border.
LikeLike