S.3327, The Terrorist Expatriation Act

S.3327, The Terrorist Expatriation Act

To add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Terrorist Expatriation Act'.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking `or' at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(8)(A) providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization;

`(B) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States; or

`(C) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against any country or armed force that is--

`(i) directly engaged along with the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States; or

`(ii) providing direct operational support to the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States.'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(c) For purposes of this section--

`(1) the term `foreign terrorist organization' means an organization so designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 219(a);

`(2) the term `hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war; and

`(3) the term `material support or resources' has the meaning given the term in section 2339A of title 18, United States Code.'.

I really can't explain why but reading this today set off a red flag in my mind. It seems reminiscint of Bush's terrorist laws without defining what a terrorist is. The same way, ATS could be viewed a terrorist organization when you have no rules defining what that organization would be, especially considering the topics often brought up on ATS.

Maybe I'm just a worry wart, but this seems troubling.

[edit on 6/20/2010 by ThaLoccster]

[edit on 6/20/2010 by ThaLoccster]

This will be how they get rid of the "Right Wing Extremists".

At Least if you loose your nationality you loose your share of the debt.



......

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Your link leads to the current Senate S. 3327.

Here's H.R. 5237 (edited) um... this is from 1989/90 Congress - you sure on the dates/numbers?


[edit on 20-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Sorry for the confusion, its been edited to correct the bill. I had a few things going on this morning and may have entered the wrong #'s.

This bill is an amendment to the Immigration and Nationalization act.

It seems like everyday the government is trying to cram some bill/law down our throats so that they could create criminals out of all the innocent citizens in this country,

The government really needs to get their priorities straight instead of trying to invent new laws every single day

Whats next? We'll need a license to walk on public streets?

Well, bottom line is...don't get on that list. If you must engage in illegal activities, whether morally right or not, please do so with EXTREME discretion and caution. They can call anyone a terrorist now, and now with a bill like this being called a terrorist means you lost your stay in this country

I've seen stories where even protesters have been deemed terrorists. Factor in any drug user/drug dealer/drug manufac. & anyone who dissents against the Federal Government (militia, etc.) gets a kick to prison camp or out of the country.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
ATS could be viewed a terrorist organization when you have no rules defining what that organization would be, especially considering the topics often brought up on ATS.

You seem to be missing the key phrase;

`(1) the term `foreign terrorist organization' means an organization so designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 219(a);

ATS would first have to be labeled as 'foreign' before being subject to this amendment. There is a difference between foreign terrorists and domestic terrorists. However, I can see some confusion if an American muslim performs a terrorist act in the name of Islam while not specifically citing any particular foreign organization...of course, I answer my own hypothesis as labeling the terrorist a domestic one as opposed to a foreign one, akin to McVeigh had he been a muslim.