Barbara has spotted it from Huffington Post and John Richardson has already written about it at citizenshipsolutions.ca.
The following is a cross-post to Brock from citizenshipsolutions.ca
Cruz Bill Eases Revocations of U.S. Citizenship Without Due Process https://t.co/L1tcQUXUsZ via @HuffPostPol
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) January 20, 2016
By the time I had received this fascinating “hot off the press” information from a U.S. law firm, I had read the article referenced in the above tweet. The article is written by David Bier who is an immigration policy analyst at the Niskanen Center. It has generated interesting discussion at Keith Redmond’s “American Expatriates Facebook Group“.Yes, it’s true, Canadian born, U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz, has introduced a bill threatening people with the loss of U.S. citizenship (notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. citizenship belongs to the citizen and NOT to the government). It is clear that Senator Cruz, hearkening back to the days of the Viet Nam era and before, is of the view that U.S. citizens remain citizens only as long as Congress allows them to. The purpose of the revocation of citizenship is to provide a mechanism to keep them out of the United States. This is is a form of “border control” – a “Cruz concern” as evidenced by the following @SenTedCruz tweet:
Border security is national security. We must take basic steps to protect American citizens https://t.co/vvZx2y4vg7 https://t.co/3qhMSIfAHN
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 20, 2016
The article in the Huffington Post is remarkably well researched and provides a reasonable overview of the issue.
See for example:
Sen. Cruz’s Expatriate Terrorist Act (S. 247) would allow bureaucrats to strip citizenship from U.S. citizens on the dangerously vague grounds of “assistance” to a terrorist group. Americans could lose their citizenship without any trial, conviction, or review by another agency. For Americans abroad, the bureaucrats would even have the ability to deny the right to travel home while a lawsuit is pending in U.S. courts.
Current Process for Expatriation Lacks Strong Due ProcessIn 1967, the Supreme Court found that Congress cannot take away an American’s citizenship unless they voluntarily choose to relinquish their citizenship. The 14th amendment is unequivocal: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States.” Congress cannot disagree. In 1980, the Court added that a person’s intent to relinquish must be proven, not merely assumed by virtue of voluntarily taking actions deemed by Congress to be “expatriating.”
The process for proving intent, however, is less than rigorous. Under 8 U.S.C. §1481, U.S. citizens–natural born or naturalized–can be expatriated if they voluntarily commit a variety of actions with the intent of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. These include naturalizing in, or being employed by, a foreign state, formally renouncing U.S. citizenship, or being convicted of treason, sedition, incitement to rebellion, or other violent acts against the U.S..
For most acts, the State Department regulations assume that you intend to keep your citizenship unless you formally renounce it. Yet if you “serve in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States,” “take a policy position in a foreign state,” or are convicted of treason, the State Department rejects the assumption. Such cases, the State Department assures us, “will be developed carefully” by U.S. consular officers.
Once the conclusion is made that you intended to give up your citizenship, however, you have little recourse. Under 8 U.S.C. 1501, if a State Department consular officer claims that you have committed such expatriating actions, and the Secretary of State signs off on the claim, that’s it: you are no longer a citizen of the United States of America. You can appeal to the decision, but only to the very State Department that just expatriated you-and under its own regulations, it will not reconsider its decision without “substantial new evidence of involuntariness or intent.”
Senator Cruz’s Expatriate Terrorism Act is for the purpose of amending S. 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
What follows is the current S. 349(a) with Cruz amendments in bold italics.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, or a foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state or a foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219 if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4) Becoming a member of, or providing training or material assistance to, any foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219. (this is a new Section 4)
(5) (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, or a foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219after attaining the age of eighteen yearsif he(A) knowingly has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) an oath, affirmation, or declaration
of allegiance to the foreign state, political subdivision, or designated foreign terrorist organization is required for such office, post, or employment.accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(6) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(7) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(8)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.
‘‘(8)(A) Committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States;‘‘(B) violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United States Code;
‘‘(C) willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, United States Code; or
‘‘(D) violating section 2384 of such title 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 such person is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.’’
The text of the proposed legislation is here:
S. 274 Expatriate Terrorism Act
Most of the proposed bill is “terrorism related”.
Notice that these proposed amendments are not congruent with S. 877A(g)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code …
By adding another section to S. 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the new S. (4) –“Becoming a member of, or providing training or material assistance to, any foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219”, S. 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act no longer aligns with the “Expatriation provisions” of the Internal Revenue Code (but why let that get in the way of an otherwise good idea?).
S. 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, who decides what is a “terrorist” or “terrorism”?
S. 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads as follows:
INA: ACT 219 – DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION 1/
Sec. 219. (a) Designation.-
(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-
(A) the organization is a foreign organization;
(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and
(C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.
(2) Procedure.-
(A) 1a/ NOTICE-
(i) TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS- Seven days before making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of the intent to designate an organization under this subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph (1 ) with respect to that organization, and the factual basis therefor.
(ii) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER- The Secretary shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days after providing the notification under clause (i).
(B) Effect of designation.-
(i) For purposes of section 2339B of title 18, United States Code, a designation under this subsection shall take effect upon publication under subparagraph (A)(ii) 1a/ .
(ii) Any designation under this subsection shall cease to have effect upon an Act of Congress disapproving such designation.
(C) Freezing of assets.-Upon notification under paragraph (2)(A)(i) 1a/ , the Secretary of the Treasury may require United States financial institutions possessing or controlling any assets of any organization included in the notification to block all financial transactions involving those assets until further directive from either the Secretary of the Treasury, Act of Congress, or order of court.
(3) Record.-
(A) In general.-In making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall create an administrative record.
(B) Classified information.-The Secretary may consider classified information in making a designation under this subsection. Classified information shall not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains classified, except that such information may be disclosed to a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial review under subsection (c ) 1d/ 1a/ .
(4) Period of designation.-
(A) In general.- 1b/ A designation under this subsection shall be effective for all purposes 1b/ until revoked under paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (c).
(B) 1b/ REVIEW OF DESIGNATION UPON PETITION-
(i) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall review the designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the procedures set forth in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the designated organization files a petition for revocation within the petition period described in clause (ii).
(ii) PETITION PERIOD- For purposes of clause (i)–
(I) if the designated organization has not previously filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition period begins 2 years after the date on which the designation was made; or
(II) if the designated organization has previously filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition period begins 2 years after the date of the determination made under clause (iv) on that petition.
(iii) PROCEDURES- Any foreign terrorist organization that submits a petition for revocation under this subparagraph must provide evidence in that petition that the relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1) are sufficiently different from the circumstances that were the basis for the designation such that a revocation with respect to the organization is warranted.
(iv) DETERMINATION-
(I) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after receiving a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph, the Secretary shall make a determination as to such revocation.
(II) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The Secretary may consider classified information in making a determination in response to a petition for revocation. Classified information shall not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains classified, except that such information may be disclosed to a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial review under subsection (c).
(III) PUBLICATION OF DETERMINATION- A determination made by the Secretary under this clause shall be published in the Federal Register.
(IV) PROCEDURES- Any revocation by the Secretary shall be made in accordance with paragraph (6).
(C) 1b/ OTHER REVIEW OF DESIGNATION-
(i) IN GENERAL- If in a 5-year period no review has taken place under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall review the designation of the foreign terrorist organization in order to determine whether such designation should be revoked pursuant to paragraph (6).
(ii) PROCEDURES- If a review does not take place pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for revocation that is filed in accordance with that subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to procedures established by the Secretary. The results of such review and the applicable procedures shall not be reviewable in any court.
(iii) PUBLICATION OF RESULTS OF REVIEW- The Secretary shall publish any determination made pursuant to this subparagraph in the Federal Register.
(5) Revocation by act of congress.-The Congress, by an Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under paragraph (1).
(6) Revocation based on change in circumstances.-
(A) In general.-The Secretary may revoke a designation made under paragraph (1) 1a/ 1d/ at any time, and shall revoke a designation upon completion of a review conducted pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the Secretary finds that-
(i) the circumstances that were the basis for the designation 1a/ 1d/ have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation 1a/ ; or
(ii) the national security of the United States warrants a revocation. 1a/
(B) Procedure.-The procedural requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) 1a/ shall apply to a revocation under this paragraph . 1a/ Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no effective date is specified.
(7) Effect of revocation.-The revocation of a designation under paragraph (5) or (6) 1d/ 1a/ shall not affect any action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the effective date of such revocation.
(8) Use of designation in trial or hearing.-If a designation under this subsection has become effective under 1a/ paragraph (2)(B) 1d/ a defendant in a criminal action 1a/ or an alien in removal proceeding shall not be permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of the issuance of such designation 1d/ 1a/ as a defense or an objection at any trial or hearing.
(b) 1c/ AMENDMENTS TO A DESIGNATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may amend a designation under this subsection if the Secretary finds that the organization has changed its name, adopted a new alias, dissolved and then reconstituted itself under a different name or names, or merged with another organization.
(2) PROCEDURE- Amendments made to a designation in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (a)(2) shall apply to an amended designation upon such publication. Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (a) shall also apply to an amended designation.
(3) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD- The administrative record shall be corrected to include the amendments as well as any additional relevant information that supports those amendments.
(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The Secretary may consider classified information in amending a designation in accordance with this subsection. Classified information shall not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains classified, except that such information may be disclosed to a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial review under subsection (c).
(c) 1c/ Judicial Review of Designation.-
(1) In general.-Not later than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register of a designation, an amended designation, or a determination in response to a petition for revocation, the designated organization may seek judicial review 1d/ in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(2) Basis of review.-Review under this subsection shall be based solely upon the administrative record, except that the Government may submit, for ex parte and in camera review, classified information used in making the designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation. 1d/
(3) Scope of review.-The Court shall hold unlawful and set aside a designation, 1d/ amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation the court finds to be-
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitation, or short of statutory right;
(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative record taken as a whole or in classified information submitted to the court under paragraph (2), or
(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law. 2/
(4) Judicial review invoked.-The pendency of an action for judicial review of a designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation 1d/ shall not affect the application of this section, unless the court issues a final order setting aside the designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for
revocation. 1d/
(d) 1c/ Definitions.-As used in this section-
(1) the term “classified information” has the meaning given that term in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);
(2) the term “national security” means the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United States;
(3) the term “relevant committees” means the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
(4) the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.
What does this all mean? Note that this applies only to “Foreign Organizations” (all things “foreign” are punished under the Internal Revenue Code as well). Note also that the Government decides who or what is or is not a “terrorist”.
As David Bier in the Huffington Post article suggests:
We should not give more power to bureaucrats to take away all of the rights of Americans with a stroke of the pen. Such a process does not accord with American traditions or basic human rights. Congress should reform the expatriation statutes to require a trial prior to loss of citizenship.
We live in troubled times indeed.
John Richardson
And….will those losing citizenship also have to pay the $2400 fee?
Maybe Cruz is compensating for the fact that he was born in Canada, and is more “American” than some folks born there.
@woofy
Good question. Let’s review: Trump calls me an anchor baby and want to strip my citizenship and let’s not forget, he wants us to pay the costs for building a wall between our countries; now Cruz provides us with a different out. ( Man those USG lawyers work hard on these convoluted new sections.)
Let the record show that for the first time in her life, Canadian Ginny consents to being stripped.
or as Freddie would sing:
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, No escape from reality. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see…..
If I ever had doubts about ditching my US citizenship (I didn’t) observing the idiots down there tripping over themselves trying to get elected president would be the clincher. Canada is lucky to be rid of Ted Cruz.
You can’t make this stuff up!!!
Aside from the constitutional issues raised in the post — what are the legal implications of revoking citizenship of someone who has no other citizenship to fall back on? Can the US even implement this if it leaves someone stateless?
@maz — I agree
Hhmmmm. …..
I am less interested in the terrorism clauses. I am more interested in the bits about not being sufficiently patriotic. If we all sign a petition calling for the break up of the United States and thn presented it to the US ambassador, would that be sufficient reason for the state department to remove our citizenship?
The most dramatic season ever of America’s Next Top President!!!11!
Whose proposal can top this week’s tough guy, Ted Cruz? Who will authorise more cluster bombs for Saudi Arabia to drop on Yemen? Who will build the biggest wall on the border? What tough new hurdles will visitors to the US face at the border? A new religion test? Skin pigmentation checks? When will voting for a Muslim candidate become material support for a foreign terrorist organisation? Only 11 more months before the season finale.
Just give ’em their CLN and they’ll be happy.
Oh by the way for new readers, a CLN is a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, a document banksters require or request as proof you’re not a U.S. Person under U.S. law.
Perhaps if losing your US citizenship takes only send ISIS $50 to be branded a ‘supporter of terrorism,’ Cruz’s bill might also serve as a benefit to some if not cheaper?
A benefit to ISIS, murderers of children.
Bubblebustin makes a good point about Cruz. “Maybe Cruz is compensating for the fact that he was born in Canada, and is more “American” than some folks born there.” Not only was he born in Canada, he was born in Calgary, a city which now has Muslim mayor! Even though he’s renounced his Canadian citizenship, he might have absorbed Muslim – friendly attitudes as a child. I assume that the FBI, CIA, and State Dept. are investigating this.
@Maz @Edleweiss It gets crazier. Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump. Perhaps she will be his running mate.
I wish Ted Cruz would help us Cruz in Reverse out of US citizenship. All he had to do to renounce Canadian citizenship was fill out a form, pop it in the mail and pay $100 Canadian which is about $70 US.
Lol, Edelweiss. It’s quite the drama.
Actually, the real drag is the clause
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
So it’s right up there with becoming naturalised or taking a Canadian government job, etc. It would be a relinquishing act requiring a CLN for FATCA purposes, and the USD 2,350 fee would still apply for that. I mentioned last year that somebody could sign up to work at the polls on Canadian election day and thereby shed U.S. citizenship, before the fee was applied to that also.
@Tom Alcere, your comments as ever add to the collective memory/collective DNA of the Brock Collective.
Your short term foreign government employment however still holds water and still has usefulness dependent on where one lives and their ability to purchase a CLN.
Lets face it, there are persons and families that MUST get rid of USC but can not afford it. So what do they do?
Get a government job then swear an affadavit with a lawyer/notary then do their best to use that as a “reasonable explanation” under the IGA. Is that the “best idea?” No, but it may be only the option.
One thing glaringly obvious but not to 99% of homelanders and even Cruz is that there remains the “intent” requirement!!! So someone can say they want to join a terrorist group and KEEP their USC.
Or as you point out, they need to apply for a CLN, pay the fee and wait ten months!!
—
One other point that should stir the pot amongst international politicians……
Ted Cruz “believes” that serving in the Government of Canada is “equal to” serving in a “foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219.”
@George: CLN or not, a relinquishing act with the intention of relinquishing prevents infection of babies born after the act. It will be interesting when one child wants U.S.A. citizenship and wants to document that the relinquishing act was not done with the intention of relinquishing but another wants to establish otherwise. That will be decades from now, perhaps.
Canadians not that eager to reclaim Ted Crux.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/01/20/voices-canadians-not-so-eager-reclaim-cruz/79035358/
Unlike, of course, the U.S. that wants to claim all of us as U.S. persons.
“Sen. Cruz’s Expatriate Terrorist Act (S. 247) would allow bureaucrats to strip citizenship from U.S. citizens on the dangerously vague grounds of “assistance” to a terrorist group.”
So would their ‘immigration citizenship’, ‘tax citizenship’ or both be stripped?
Wonder if being investigated by the US for ‘supporting’ ISIS will influence Justin Trudeau’s decision regarding pulling support for the ongoing litigation.
He campaigned on reviewing , at the very least, the litigation and the contents of the current IGA regarding adequate protections for Canadian Citizens and Permanent Residents.
As no word from on high has been forthcoming other than instructions to continue the lawsuit, one must assume that there was never the intention to do anything about it at all and IF there were, there certainly will not be now with” himself” under ‘investigation’ by the US !
One of the websites found in a search of Trudeau being so investigated says *Please Support Us! Please click the LIKE button below to read this article.*
@Duality: hard to say. Cruz’ bill is terribly drafted (since it is not a real law, just a political stunt he’s using to signal to voters for the primary); it doesn’t fix any of the existing cross-references from other parts of US law to the loss-of-nationality statute, like the tax expatriation stuff in 26 USC 877A(g)(4).
If he’s serious about making this a real law, he’d need to fix the cross references. Either he could:
1. Add explicit provisions on when your tax expatriation date would be if you gave “material support to terrorists” under his new 8 USC 1481(a)(4)
2. Just renumber the other stuff mentioned in 877A, but not add his new paragraph 4
If it were #1, it’s possible that terrorists would be in a better position than other relinquishers (e.g. not having to report to the State Department in person and fill out forms to get a tax expatriation date). More likely he’ll do #2, and then the terrorist’s tax expatriation date would be whenever the State Department issues them a CLN.
But wait, there’s two catches in #2:
1. If they committed the terrorist act within the US, State has no authority to issue a CLN to them (see 8 USC 1501) and they would be on the hook for taxes forever (roughly the same as any of those prisoners who succeed
2. State currently charges $2350 for CLNs, so maybe the terrorists would be on the hook for taxes forever until they pay State’s fee
@Eric
“2. State currently charges $2350 for CLNs, so maybe the terrorists would be on the hook for taxes forever until they pay State’s fee”
In theory, a US-born ISIS jihadist could visit the American Embassy in Damascus to pay $2,350 to obtain his CLN in order to prove that he would no longer be obliged to file his Form 1040 (et al) to the IRS. In practice, however, …
Oh, oh, Mr. Cruz.
https://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231093
Em and others,
This looks like it will be an issue for Mr. Ted Cruz (https://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231093), born in Canada to US mother in 1970, and of great interest to me (and others who came to Canada (in and before I came as a landed immigrant, 1969, and subsequently had children born in Canada before becoming a Canadian citizen in 1975) before February 15, 1977) — my son was born in Canada to two (still) U.S. citizen parents (who became Canadian citizens in March 1975). Our children were NOT registered as US Births Abroad. Does that make doing so a *claim* to US citizenship before February 15, 1977 — at least as far as Canada is concerned?
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/overview/hist.asp