I know I’m probably gonna’ get it from some of you for this one. Last week I mocked Patrick endlessly for being a liberal woosy for questioning the Arizona bill and many of you ripped into him pretty good as well. I called him Michael Moore for days.
Now I fear that Patrick may get his comeuppance on me.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman is pursuing legislation that would strip the “citizenship rights” of Americans who commit acts of terrorism. McCain, who by the way is in a bit of a primary race, said that the would be Times Square terrorist shouldn’t be mirandized.
Look, I’m all for prosecuting terrorists to the fullest extent of the law but I’m a little nervous about efforts to strip this terrorist of his rights as a citizen, not so much because I’m worried about him but I’m worried about…me.
Once the federal government creates or discovers a loophole to strip citizenship rights, be assured that the loophole is going to continue widening and widening and it may just end up around our necks.
Couldn’t you foresee a scenario where pro-lifers or Christians acting according to the dictates of their conscience are stripped of their citizenship under a similar clause? Heck, the federal government wants to force doctors and pharmacists to do all sorts of things against their will already.
This administration and their friends in the media have taken to calling all political enemies “UnAmerican” already. It’s not that far of a leap to believe that classification will become legitimized in the future by the government intent on accruing power.
Don’t say it couldn’t happen. Liberals are all about expanding programs and laws much further than their original intent. Remember the pro-aborts attempted to use RICO racketeering laws to criminalize pro-lifers.
Look, the way government is growing by leaps and bounds I foresee a time when Christian conservative protest will be criminalized. I don’t want to hand the government any more levers to be used against me than they already have.
The rights of citizens of the United States cannot be removed because it is the popular thing to do. You can’t say that the government is only going to do this just this one time. Once precedent is set, it will be done again.
If the rights of citizens can be taken away they cease to be rights in any true sense. They would simply become privileges which could be granted and removed by the whim of those in power.
May 5, 2010 at 4:32 am
Good points Matthew. If the terrorist doesn't get mirandized because he is an enemy combatant that's fine. But I agree that the Feds should not have the power to remove citizenship based upon the potentially nebulous charge of "terrorist activities." Good job smacking Patrick around, he seems to have gotten his information on the AZ bill from the New York Times.
May 5, 2010 at 4:41 am
That is a very good point. If our laws are good, nobody should *need* to be "stripped" of citizenship… except for basically the reasons that you laid out.
May 5, 2010 at 4:49 am
Unfortunately you're right on the money. The way things are going we could very easily find the very laws passed to "protect" is becoming the source of our extinction.
A historical example is the oft cited use of gun registration laws by the Nazis against their opponents. Most people don't seem to know those laws were passed during the time of the Weimar Republic. (Disclaimer: The Nazis DID pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens.")
The original laws were passed so Communists and Facists wouldn't overthrow the government.
It worked out so well when those Facists were voted into power by the people.
May 5, 2010 at 5:48 am
Good grief – *Lieberman* proposed this? It wasn't too many years ago that we fought a war against a country that stripped rights from its citizens (does "yellow star" ring a bell?) and then proceeded to strip life, skin, and flesh. The end goal was to make that country Judenrein (clean of Jews).
Similarly, "clean of terrorists" could easily morph into "clean of Christians" or "clean of non-Democrats" in the wrong hands.
Let's also remind Joe and his party that the bigger government gets, the more likely there will be "wrong hands". Power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Doug
May 5, 2010 at 6:44 am
Didn't you cover the way Obama ordered a hit on a US Citizen without formally removing his citizenship? The SOB that "mentored" the shooter at the Army base.
No disagreement that legislating away the protections of citizenship is a bad thing; part of why I'm so gung-ho on enforcement of immigration laws is BECAUSE being a citizen (or guest) should MATTER.
May 5, 2010 at 6:48 am
(Nevermind, just remembered that was over at American Catholic, because one of their guys saw fit to re-write my post because "SOB" implies cursing. At which point I left that conversation… visually bleep if you want, but when folks start re-writing multiple comments, I'm out of there.)
May 5, 2010 at 7:36 am
With you 100% on it. If someone is a citizen, then that means he should be prosecuted for treason as well as terrorism, but we can't retract citizenship just because of it.
And there is total precedence for it being used politically– the Soviet Union did it to a number of dissidents, for example, Solzhenitsyn, among others. They weren't convicted of terrorism, but opening their mouths was enough, and what may start for pro-life protestors et al. would expand to encompass thought policing.
May 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see the connection between the two issues. I think you can be comfortable with one and not the other. I wouldn't classify Lieberman or McCain as conservative. Would you? I find I often disagree with them.
May 5, 2010 at 1:47 pm
When the Patriot Act was passed in the first place I recalled the words of a famous Protestant thinker Francis Schaeffer who warned in How Shall We Then Live, that people would give up civil liberties for personal peace and affluence. At the time the conservative Christians weren't worried because there was a supposedly pro-life president at the helm. I worried because I knew that the chances we'd have an anti-conservative president and Congress in the future was a genuine possibility. What the right could use against the left, the left could use against the right and heaven help those who see the dangers in both finance capitalism and state take over. No wonder I saw no good choice in the last election if Senator McCain is taking that sort of position.
BTW remember those eugenics laws the Germans passed that led to acts that were later deplored by the world were based on laws passed in some states of the United States. Now there is actually support once again for that sort of eugenics. Perhaps it is not in the manner the Nazis did it (at least not yet), but it is happening in a quieter fashion in abortion clinics and hospitals around the country. Babies with Downs syndrome and other genetic anomalies are being routinely aborted.
Don't ever think, it can't happen here, or that it can't happen again. In A Man For All Seasons one of the characters says to Thomas More, "This isn't Spain, you know." in reference to the Inquisition. As it turned out England became every bit as dangerous a place for Catholics faithful to Rome as Spain was for heretics. Whenever we fail to protect the rights of someone who disagrees with us, we endanger our own.
May 5, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Lieberman and McCain are NOT conservative. They are Liberals or Progressives. They have no qualms about that sort of thing.
So this Islamic nut is a citizen. Treat him as one. Read him his rights but they better also read him his duties as well and the consequences of an act of Treason.
I don't think they would need any statements from him in order to convict him of the crime of attempted bombing but they would in order to convict him of Treason. If found guilty, they should have a public hanging on Times Square.
May 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Good points, I am terrified by the ever expanding powers of the government. I remember going to a FOCUS conference two years ago where Fr. Benedict Groeschel spoke about that if things didn't change regarding abortion that we as Catholics would begin to feel a new wave of persecution equal to what the martyrs endured in the coliseum. I remember shuddering when I heard this, but at the same I was not too surprised, a part of me knew that this struggle would be inevitable since our parent's generation did nothing to stop the spread of abortion rights.
Regarding the immigration issue in Arizona I also feel mixed. Personally I believe in the prosecuting illegal immigrants to the furthest extent, but it seems like every bishop or cardinal is against it somehow. I am a first generation American; both of my parents are from Europe and both of them went through the entire immigration process to become naturalized citizens. Why aren't these bishops defending the rights of the immigrants who become citizens through the immigration process? It seems that once again the Bishops are out of touch with main street realities. It is so sad our shepherds just don't get it.
May 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm
You don't shred the Constitution for any reason. If you are legally entitled to the protection of the law as a US citizen, you are endowed with those rights. The only way those rights should be forfeit is if you the citizen denounce your citizenship legally.
You can't cherry pick those citizens that are protected by the law. We either all are protected or none of us are.
May 5, 2010 at 3:43 pm
"I know I'm probably gonna' get it from some of you for this one. Last week I mocked Patrick endlessly for being a liberal woosy for questioning the Arizona bill and many of you ripped into him pretty good as well. I called him Michael Moore for days."
Because he believes in fairness and equality? Immigration isn't gay marriage. I dare say the faith would be strengthened by the immigrant population if we fairly reformed immigration laws.
I mean, lets face it, most of these people dream of having a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. We can't fault them for that.
And, as you can now see, once you start down the slippery slope, its only a matter of time before you find yourself at the bottom.
May 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm
It seems that this post takes for granted that citizenship is (or should be) some kind of indelible mark, but that is not the case. There are several ways that one can loose citizenship, listed, for example, on passports. The most obvious is that one can revoke citizenship by going before certain government officials and announcing your intent to do so.
Another way is to join the military of a country considered hostile. Honestly, since the president is keen to give terrorists protections as soldiers, they should face the consequences as such. This means that they should loose citizenship and, if their actions warrant, be charged with war-crimes.
The claim that making it possible to take citizenship away from one group means that pro-lifers will loose theirs is, in addition to being a slippery slope, unsound precisely because it is already possible to do so.
May 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Terence, I'm all for reforming immigration laws, streamlining the process as much as possible. But illegal immigrants are knowingly violating the laws, and so they should face the just punishment of the law. (There were some other problems I have with the AZ bill, but not the verification of citizenship/residency portion. If I picked up a hitchhiker who turned out to be illegal I could potentially face charges.)
With regards to the original post, I think that it's horrific that anyone in our government thinks that an American accused of terrorist activity can be stripped of their citizenship. No due process of law, just the accusation is enough? No way. We are still a country of laws, and one of the core principles is "innocent until proven guilty". McCain is wrong in his assessment…the Times Square would-be bomber should have his rights read to him. To do otherwise is to judge the man guilty before trial. He can't have his citizenship revoked, or lose any other rights, until he is tried and convicted.
I'll refrain from judging Lieberman's proposal, because I don't know the order involved. If the legislation is a proposal to strip citizenship from a citizen found guilty of terrorism (which can be argued to be a form of treason), I think it might be ok. Trial then sentence, due process.
Kurt, there would have to be a finding of fact to verify that a person has indeed joined the military of a hostile country, or, in this case, a terrorist organization. Accusation is not sufficient. And while that fact-finding is being done, the accused must be presumed to retain those rights. Thus, Mirandize them.
May 5, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Perhaps we are all missing the point — one infers from governmental behavior of the past few years that a non-citizen enjoys more patronage and support from the federal government than a citizen.
May 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Patrick – 2, Matthew – 0
Citizenship is not a God-given right. And ANYONE who lives within the borders of a sovreign country must respect the laws of said country – citizen or not. The reality is, the only real difference between a citizen and a resident alien is the right to vote and hold some government jobs. That's it. And if you are a US citizen convicted of a felony, you can do neither anyway. So, it's just an argument of semantics.
Instead of "stripping away one's citizenship" which obviously gets some here into a tizzie, since big-bad-government is apparently gonna come after them next any minute, maybe the term should be "feloniously citizenship challenged". Would that let you sleep better?
May 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Surely there must be a distinction between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen (who may have a dual citizenship). A naturalized citizen, such as John Demjanjuk, can be deported back to his original country if his citizenship is revoked. Naturalized citizens can not be deported.
BTW, part of the problem with the detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is that many of the home countries refuse to accept them back because they are to dangerous.
May 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Yikes. To the folks who'd stand behind this law, what would be the line someone would have to cross in order to be considered a terrorist? Do they have to blow up something–or try to? Or will it be enough, in the near future, just to be considered a "dissident"? To some abortionists, standing in the way of a woman's getting an abortion is an act of terrorism.
May 5, 2010 at 6:12 pm
You can't just say "never mind" when someone does something bad. We made him a citizen, so he has the rights of a citizen. Creating some "Backsies" rule will just weaken our Republic further.
If he wants to renounce his rights as a citizen, then that's completely different.