Northern Gaijin

The closest declaration to this section of the NDAA 2012 bill is the German Enabling Act of 1933, the Ermächtigungsgesetz or Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich and you know where that led.

Axé.

About these ads

4 Comments

Filed under Da Whiteman, News

4 responses to “Northern Gaijin

  1. N G

    Just to make your day, a new bill was introduced on January 12, 2012 which allows the US government to terminate the citizenship of any American who “supports hostilities” against the US government. Of course, “supports” and “hostilities” are not defined nor is any mention of conviction so this is an extrajudicial elimination of citizenship for any American which the government decides is a threat. No lawyer. No trail. No constitutional rights. Someone makes an accusation and you’re history. And to what other country can you go? It’s called the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166/S1698) and on first reading is very cryptic but if you follow the links and analyse the logic then it becomes clear why Obama said that he wouldn’t use the previous bill (HR 1867) which he signed on New Year’s Eve on US citizens. He can nail anyone with this! There is a mention of hostilities being subject to the rule of law but the decision can’t be rebutted within the context of the situation. Here’s the official video:

    And here’s the text:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:s1698:

    Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!

  2. Pingback: Unconstitutional | Mictlantecuhtli

  3. Pingback: Citizenship Termination Bill « Clarissa's Blog

  4. N G

    No more German references as in the last quote since the proponents of this bill are using them- this is an example of Godwin’s Law or Leo Strauss’ Reductio ad Hitlerum which is an association fallacy. Actually I was thinking with respect to the “Leader” about the Unitary Executive concept of American governance with its physical embodiment in the presidential signing statement but more about that later. How about asylum in Canada for those affected by this proposed law (HR 3166/ S1698) which is currently in committee?

    “Canada has obliged itself to protect genuine refugees, that is, not to send them back to persecution. People who get to Canada on their own can claim refugee protection at any border point, or inside Canada, at a Canadian Immigration Visa Office.”

    http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-immigration-refugee-status.html

    A stateless person may replace his nationality with the country of habitual residency on his Canadian refugee application form so we could consider as a solution a new underground railway modelled on the one that existed in the States after Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 where slaves from the southern plantations travelled in secret to Canada. Now I know why they want to build a fence and fly drones on America’s northern border.

    After further study, a correction also has to be made on the time frame for this bill. This proposed law first showed up on the media radar in May of 2011 with a Boston Globe story and one interview of Congressman Dean by MSNBC (http://youtu.be/-Y8zRYzWsbU), disappeared, made a brief reappearance in October of 2011, and finally went under the radar until January of 2012. No coverage by any of the mass media after May.

    In the fore mentioned MSNBC interview there are a couple of intentional duplicities. The interviewer says that “This would essentially take away citizenship from those convicted of working with terror groups.” To which Congressman Dean responds, “First it’s true. (Referring to the previous statement) Essentially allowing the State Department to issue a certificate of loss of nationality against… (those) who take up arms against this country.” The Interviewer repeats “after a conviction. “ To which Congressman Dean replies “after an investigation… the burden of proof would be on the State Department. “

    First the act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:s1698 :) adds a new paragraph (8) to the seven paragraphs in Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) subsection (a). Paragraph 7 does have the requirement of judicial process:

    (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

    ; However, this applies solely to paragraph 7 and not to the new paragraph 8 created by this bill. A certificate from the State Department is the product of an executive decision required by the “shall” at the beginning of Section 349 and not a judicial review.

    Secondly the Congressman states that the burden of proof would be on the State Department; however, the bill does not change subsection (b) of Section 349 which states:

    (b)Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

    Ref.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

    On October 12, 2011 Senator Scott Brown (MA) wrote the following on his blog:

    “When American citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki incite the violent overthrow of the United States and work within terrorist networks to coordinate attacks against the American people, it is appropriate that the federal government consider their actions a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship,” said Congressman Dent. “This bill modernizes the process by which the citizenship status of an individual engaged in hostiles against the American people is examined by treating terrorists in the same manner as a U.S citizen who marched with the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the forces of Saddam Hussein.”

    “Unfortunately, we live in a world where our own citizens may engage in terrorism against our country,” Congressman Altmire said. “To help meet the challenges we are facing, and to protect our homeland, updates to our current laws are necessary as we continue to fight the global war on terror.”

    The same due process that applies to the existing statute will apply to those whose citizenship could be revoked under the proposed amendment to the law. The State Department would make an administrative determination that a U.S. Citizen has indicated his intent to renounce his citizenship by engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States. That individual would then have the right to appeal that determination to the State Department and, then, to a federal district court.

    http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/10/lieberman-scott-brown-dent-altmire-introduce-enemy-expatriation-act

    1) Notice the reference to the “third Reich” which is an example of Godwin’s Law or Leo Strauss’ Reductio ad Hitlerum which is an association fallacy. Clever PR but on an issue of this importance not fair from a public figure.

    2) “The same due process that applies to the existing statute will apply to those whose citizenship could be revoked under the proposed amendment to the law. As I pointed out due process does NOT apply to the proposed amendment.

    3) “Administrative determination“ There is no judicial review and the only determination is if the person is to be sanctioned under this statue since the word shall in the introduction of Section 349 predetermines the outcome.

    4) Since the person is predetermined to be stateless and has no legal standing to reside in America where does this person stay during the appeal process?

    5) There is no right to judicial review since the person is no longer an American citizen and has no constitutional rights nor is any judicial process present in the amendment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s