I’m going to blog about this too because this is just too outrageous. Do people even know that this is going on? This is worse than the Patriot Act! WTF???
No more German references as in the last quote- 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.”
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.
Yes, but that only means this is the one that showed up; the other is an approved comment but I have not succeeded in making it show up.
I have been thinking about this since you posted it. It seems like they are gearing up for something, attempting this in conjunction with other recent erasures of “civil liberties” like the NDAA.
I wonder if the “something” they expect is Iran? I hope not.
I can’t help but think Iran is one of the things. And more generally, a permanent state of war, with disagreement being illegal and dangerous? I’m worried.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
I’m going to blog about this too because this is just too outrageous. Do people even know that this is going on? This is worse than the Patriot Act! WTF???
No more German references as in the last quote- 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
Test – let me see if, by replying, I can make this comment show up.
Yes, but that only means this is the one that showed up; the other is an approved comment but I have not succeeded in making it show up.
I have been thinking about this since you posted it. It seems like they are gearing up for something, attempting this in conjunction with other recent erasures of “civil liberties” like the NDAA.
I wonder if the “something” they expect is Iran? I hope not.
I can’t help but think Iran is one of the things. And more generally, a permanent state of war, with disagreement being illegal and dangerous? I’m worried.
N G, after getting your mail I went into spam and found there 2 of your 3 comments; tried to post both but only this one came through.