Stories are running rampant lately throughout social media and blog spheres about the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166/S1698) (detailed bill text here), initiated in Congress back in October, 2011 by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Congressmen Charlie Dent (R-PA), Scott Brown (R-MA), and Jason Altmire (D-PA). The summary text of this bill states, “To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.”
Basically, this bill adds this new clause to the Immigration and Nationality Act (US Code, Title 8 “Aliens and Nationality”, Chapter 12, Sub Chapter III, Part III “Loss of Nationality”, sections 1481/1483 – link here).
So, what is a “United States national“? (read on to find out if you are one…)
According to the IRS Immigration Terms website, it is “an individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, including all U.S. citizens, and including some individuals who are not U.S. citizens. For tax purposes the term “U.S. national” refers to individuals who were born in American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” Essentially, all US citizens are considered Nationals (although not all Nationals are citizens).
Yes, if you were born in the United States, this bill applies to you.
The bill also addresses the term “hostilities” as “any conflict subject to the laws of war“. I had a hard time finding a reference to which actions, exactly, are subject to the “laws of war”. If you look at the bill, you will see no definition for that. This lack of specificity for such critical terms, both in this bill and in the 2011 NDAA, should really concern you.
When this bill was introduced last October, the chief Congressional sponsor, Charlie Dent, published this video, attempting to explain the intent of the bill. He insists that it only applies to US citizens who “engage in hostilities against the US on behalf of an armed force of a foreign state.” While Congressman Dent’s words make it all sound less intrusive, and perhaps something which “makes us safe”, they speak to things that are not found in the actual bill, and are only his words.
In fact, when this same group of legislators tried to pass a similar bill in 2010 (called the “Terrorist Expatriation Act“), legal red-flags shot up all over the place. Why would they think they have a better environment for passing such a bill today than they did less than two years ago? I would assume that, during an election cycle, the antenna of a good portion of the American people is highly tuned for acts of such irresponsibility. Looking at the recent public rejection of SOPA and PIPA, you would figure they might want to put something like this on ice for a while. But then again, Congress did repeal Posse Comitatus last month, so why not go for broke and finish the job?
Some say US Citizenship is a privilege, and not a right. While this may be true, as citizens we do have some natural rights conferred upon us. Bills such as this, with their open-ended clauses, are stark threats to those rights and leave the severity of enforcement up to the benevolence of the enforcer.
Ben Franklin warned us during the Revolution that “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
What are these “essential liberties“, and who will differentiate them from the “non-essential” ones? Can any liberty be called “non-essential“? HR 3166, coupled with the NDAA’s repeal of Posse Comitatus, puts all of them at risk.
Where do you fall on the sliding scale of safety at the risk of civil liberties, and are you willing to trust any President – the single person tasked with enforcing these protections – that far?
