Faisal Shahzad
- Thread starter Huracan
- Start date
He obtained citizenship in April 2009. Considering he made many trips to Pakistan before then, it's likely he started his associations with terrorist groups before then. One doesn't decide one day to fly to Pakistan for bomb making training without having a past history or association to terror based groups.
So how do you explain the 2006 treason conviction of Gadahn?
sanjoseaug20
Registered Users (C)
Come on Real. You know it as well as I that if a motivated CIS auditor starts checking files for inconsistency, half the naturalized people will be in trouble. You only need to see "mature bureaucracies" like India to see that a Babu can find fault in any file at any time. You just need an incentive to do so.
I understand that. Even this legislation will have to pass congressional hurdles. However, it is not the first time that naturalization becomes the target. I hope you see the underlying struggle between nativists and naturalized citizens. For some people naturalized citizens will always be second class citizens. I'd like to put my weight behind making naturalized citizens first class citizens. Where do you stand on this? Here is the text from Senator Lieberman's page. Does any reasonable person think that denaturalization is needed in order to prevent a US citizen from coming from abroad to commit an act of terrorism? What are no-fly lists for? It is better that the guy tries to enter with the US passport, instead of entering with a fake Canadian passport.
"This Act will provide another important tool for our military and intelligence communities to use against homegrown terrorists who travel abroad and join groups intent on attacking our homeland and Americans and our allies throughout the world. Under this Act, those individuals will not subsequently be able to use their American passports to travel back to the United States or elsewhere in the world to commit acts of terror."
Furthermore, this will seem to lead to litigation and taxpayer expense. I think it is better to get the FBI or CIA track these individuals and apply the law to them when caught. This denaturalization sounds more like a tantrum reaction and a distraction and it is not a useful tool as claimed.
By the same token, they can start denaturalizing people for getting their employment dates wrong or miscounting their days out of the country. This is all purely academic.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
You mean indictment? I didn't say that treason wasn't on the books, btw.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
A bureaucrat can find fault in any file at any time. But a bureuacrat cannot denaturalize anyone.
The suggested legislation makes no differentiation between US born and naturalized US citizen, meaning either could be stripped of their citizenship for treason, so what do you mean by struggle between US born and naturalized?
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I think politicians are bringing up denaturalization because they want to denaturalize people before trying them for terrorism or whatever offense they are accused of. Then once their citizenship is gone, they can deem them an "enemy combatant" and have a military tribunal or some other kind of trial without all the usual rights and rules that apply to citizens.
And that is very scary. They want the power to strip citizenship before a court has found the individual guilty via due process.
And that is very scary. They want the power to strip citizenship before a court has found the individual guilty via due process.
Yes, indictment. My point is that in this post 9/11 world (just like during WWII), the government can decide to newly pursue denaturalization cases based on treason. Until a high profile case makes it way through the court system, we shall never know how successful such a effort will be.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Fair enough. It's worth mentioning that you can't denaturalize based on an indictment, and given past precedents since 1945 I'd be very skeptical whether they could denaturalize based on treason. The consistent jurisprudence since that point has held that under the 14th Amendment, you can't strip a naturalized citizen of their citizenship for any reason that would not case a natural-born citizen to lose citizenship, save fraud during the naturalization process. And in the first case, the court has been pretty consistent in ruling that any acts must have the explicit intent to losing US citizenship. But you're right - we don't know until it makes its way through the courts.
I doubt anyone here really is worried or excited about this so it is abhout academic anyway.
As I said, if one is not a terrosit oen shoudl not worry. If one is a terrorist, then is US citizenship
still big thing to him? How can US citizenship still be so important when that person hate USAS so
much?
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Wrong. If the government can deem you a terrorist based on weak evidence, and then trample on your rights as a result of that designation, that is something to worry about whether you are actually a terrorist or not. So we have to watchful of their efforts to pass laws to make it easy to designate somebody as a terrorist and strip their citizenship.
I agree with Jackolantern. I would like to add that the proposed bill not only applies to terrorists, but to anyone who provides shelter, money and other things. What if I have an acquaintance, I give him money and later on he turns out a terrorist. Could Department of State try to strip me of my citizenship? I've never bought the argument that if one doesn't do anything wrong, why worry. I worry, because innocent people sometimes get entangled in false accusations.
By the way, this is the text of the bill http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_full.pdf
By the way, this is the text of the bill http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_full.pdf
If they take away your citizenship based upon such wrong conviction, that wrong conviction will land you in prision for a very long time or even death chamber anyway. It won't make much difference whether they de-natualize you or not. It does not make sense to still worry about some skin disease when you are fatally ill.
Bottomline: this matter is not a realistic cause for concern. The probablity that it happen to a particular person is very small. Of course we can be ideologically concernved about its rightfulness or
wrongfulness.
I'm all in favor of extra checks and everything to make this country safer.
However, this man was in the US legally, and had he not applied for naturalization, he would have been able to commit the same crime, absolutely no difference.
And I doubt they would have deported him after...lol. This guy has got permanent residence in the US, can't get any more permanent than this.
More than extra background checks (to be done when granting visas and green cards, not citizenship), I am more worried about them cracking down on dual citizenship. It wouldn't change anything, and also there's no way I'd give up my other citizenship.
However, this man was in the US legally, and had he not applied for naturalization, he would have been able to commit the same crime, absolutely no difference.
And I doubt they would have deported him after...lol. This guy has got permanent residence in the US, can't get any more permanent than this.
More than extra background checks (to be done when granting visas and green cards, not citizenship), I am more worried about them cracking down on dual citizenship. It wouldn't change anything, and also there's no way I'd give up my other citizenship.