Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics, Society

Lieberman to Propose Citizenship-Stripping Law

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post is reporting that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will be proposing a new law that could potentially strip Americans of their citizenship if they’re involved with foreign terrorist organizations. The limited details revealed today are enough to send a chill down the spine of civil libertarians around the country. I will be discussing this issue tonight on Rachel Maddow’s show.


The law reportedly would allow the State Department to treat citizenship like an administrative matter — deciding whether you have associated with terrorist organizations. Agency procedures are widely condemned for their lack of due process protections and the heavy deference given to agency decision-making. We have seen abuses of this system in the designation of organizations under a similar process.

To his credit, Schumer has come out against Lieberman’s proposal, again as reported by Sargant. He reports that Schumer initially indicated that he might support the law. However, Schumer’s staff insists that he was approached briefly in the hall on the subject but that he could not support such a proposal.

While the burden would be on the State Department and you would have access to court review, the agency process could make it difficult to contest such findings — particularly with the use of secret evidence (and barring the use of evidence by the defendant on national security grounds).

Stripping citizens of their citizenship could also create stateless persons — a problem in international law. Moreover, this process could occur at the same time that a person is fighting criminal charges — adding to the practical and financial burden.

Lieberman will reportedly hold a presser on Thursday.

For the full story, click here.

51 thoughts on “Lieberman to Propose Citizenship-Stripping Law”

  5. it would seem that this is a bad idea in whole and in part. But to interject contention and expand debate:

    the case Nal cited was about a man voting in an election in Israel not about someone planting bombs in the middle of large metropolitan areas. What about people who are here and have been here for years with the express purpose of doing harm to the US? If they are naturalized citizens didn’t they become citizens under false pretenses? Shouldn’t/wouldn’t that nullify their claim to citizenship?

    How can you credibly take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic when you are the enemy? You also swear to denounce fealty to a foreign leader which you clearly haven’t.

    You certainly cant do this to natural born citizens but isn’t there a case for doing this to naturalized citizens?

  6. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

    Syllabus

    Petitioner, of Polish birth, became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950, and in 1951 voted in an Israeli legislative election. The State Department subsequently refused to renew his passport, maintaining that petitioner had lost his citizenship by virtue of § 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provides that a United States citizen shall “lose” his citizenship if he votes in a foreign political election. Petitioner then brought this declaratory judgment action alleging the unconstitutionality of § 401(e). On the basis of Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that Congress, under its implied power to regulate foreign affairs, can strip an American citizen of his citizenship.

    Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 387 U. S. 256-268.

    (a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in @ 22 U. S. 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 387 U. S. 257-261.

    (b) The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .” completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 387 U. S. 262-268.

    361 F.2d 102, reversed.

  7. http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html

    U.S. Supreme Court
    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    Quote]

    Views of the Justices have varied when it comes to the problem of expatriation.

    There is one view that the power of Congress to take away citizenship for activities of the citizen is nonexistent absent expatriation by the voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. See Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44, 356 U. S. 79 (dissenting opinion of JUSTICES BLACK and DOUGLAS); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 (opinion by CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN). That view has not yet commanded a majority of the entire Court. Hence, we are faced with the issue presented and decided in Perez v. Brownell, supra, i.e., whether the present Act violates due process. That, in turn, comes to the question put in the following words in Perez:

    “Is the means, withdrawal of citizenship, reasonably calculated to effect the end that is within the power of Congress to achieve, the avoidance of embarrassment in the conduct of our foreign relations . . . ?”

    356 U.S. at 356 U. S. 60.

    In that case, where an American citizen voted in a foreign election, the answer was in the affirmative. In the present case, the question is whether the same answer should be given merely because the naturalized citizen lived in her former homeland continuously for three years. We think not.

    Speaking of the provision in the Nationality Act of 1940, which was the predecessor of § 352(a)(1), Chairman Dickstein of the House said that the bill would “relieve this country of the responsibility of those who reside in foreign lands and only claim citizenship when it serves their purpose.” 86 Cong.Rec. 11944. And the Senate Report on the 1940 bill stated:

    “These provisions for loss of nationality by residence abroad would greatly lessen the task of the United States in protecting through the Department of State nominal citizens of this country who are abroad but whose real interests, as shown by the conditions of their foreign stay, are not in this country.”

    S.Rep. No. 2150, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 4.

    As stated by Judge Fahy, dissenting below, such legislation, touching as it does on the “most precious right” of citizenship (Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 372 U. S. 159), would have to be justified under the foreign relations power

    “by some more urgent public necessity than substituting administrative convenience for the individual right of which the citizen is deprived.”

    In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra, a divided Court held that it was beyond the power of Congress to deprive an American of his citizenship automatically and without any prior judicial or administrative proceedings because he left the United States in time of war to evade or avoid training or service in the Armed Forces. The Court held that it was an unconstitutional use of
    congressional power because it took away citizenship as punishment for the offense of remaining outside the country to avoid military service without, at the same time, affording him the procedural safeguards granted by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Yet even the dissenters, who felt that flight or absence to evade the duty of helping to defend the country in time of war amounted to manifest nonallegiance, made a reservation. JUSTICE STEWART stated:

    “Previous decisions have suggested that congressional exercise of the power to expatriate may be subject to a further constitutional restriction — a limitation upon the kind of activity which may be made the basis of denationalization. Withdrawal of citizenship is a drastic measure. Moreover, the power to expatriate endows government with authority to define and to limit the society which it represents and to which it is responsible.”

    “This Court has never held that Congress’ power to expatriate may be used unsparingly in every area in which it has general power to act. Our previous decisions upholding involuntary denationalization all involved conduct inconsistent with undiluted allegiance to this country.”

    This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable, and bear less allegiance to this country than do the native born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make. Moreover, while the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is “so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 347 U. S. 499. A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons.

    Reversed.

  8. The oath taken by U.S. Senators:

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

  10. Hello Prof. Turley, You are remarkably even-toned in your criticism of Lieberman’s completely asinine and unconstitutional proposal. The goal of Lieberman’s proposal is clearly not to make our country safer, but to make himself the center of attention. I think you would have to turn it up about 12 notches before you would be giving this the reaction it deserves.

  11. vlf2112,

    Next time you see him could you tell him that he should be ashamed of himself for me.

  12. AY,
    Never a dull or quiet moment in my world. well, almost never, I have decided to take one of those for myself tonight, although that is only because I’ve had about all I can take of my allergy symptoms for the week. Hence….night off for me:)

  13. I assume that Sen. Lieberman would also grant authority to the appropriate agencies to compile the list of “terrorist organizations.” I used to believe that this gentleman was at least capable of rational thought. I will no longer harbor that delusion.

  14. Sigh. I take absolutely no responsibility for Ol’ Droopy Dog – I worked really hard for the Lamont campaign and I must question the sanity of my fellow Nutmeggers who voted for Droopy.

    I truly don’t know what powers I have in me that prohibits me, while walking my dog on Saturday mornings, from smacking him upside his empty melon as he walks by me on his way to temple.

    He really, really quite draining on my psyche.

  16. AY,

    I can’t even muster that. Lieberman doesn’t surprise me any more, he just depresses me…

  20. I was wondering why I felt a chill… How long before Connecticut can vote this jackass out of office?

Comments are closed.