Citizenship at Risk

The most recent piece of legislation being considered by our more foolish politicians is a bill which would allow the U.S. State Department to strip the citizenship of any American engaged in terrorism. Specifically, this law could be invoked if one serves in the Armed Forces of a foreign state engaged in warfare against the U.S., commits treason against the U.S., or provides material support to a terrorist organization. The legislation was motivated by the recent arrest of a Pakistani-American for allegedly plotting to bomb Times Square.

Many commentators have pointed out other serious flaws in the bill based on solid legal precedent and the Constitution, including Supreme Court decisions that have rejected such attempts to take away one's citizenship. I will not spend time on those arguments since they are readily available.

The first thing that strikes me about this proposed law is that it is a covert way of threatening naturalized citizens. While its sponsors may argue that any American could be affected, I highly question such a proposition. After all, if you strip the citizenship of someone born in the United States, they become stateless. So then to where will you deport them once you’ve succeeded in taking away their citizenship? Obviously, deportation is the unltimate goal in taking away a person's citizenship. And if you cannot deport a suspected terrorist then they remain a risk to our communities unless, of course, you indefinitely lock up him or her. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled several years ago that the indefinite detention of a noncitizen is unconstitutional. Since there are much too many problematic legal issues with the proposition that this proposal would affect all Americans, I contend that this bill, whose primary sponsors are Joe Lieberman and the new Republican hero of Massachusetts, Scott Brown, is only directed at immigrants. Immigrants who have naturalized.

I am also concerned with the very fluid definition of providing "material support to a terrorist organization" and the fact that the Government clearly makes mistakes in determining who are terrorist and who are their supporters. Watch Strange Culture, an excellent film about the ordeal of University of Buffalo Art Professor Steve Kurtz, who waged a four year battle against the U.S. Attorney’s Office after he was accused being a “bioterrorist.” Kurtz ultimately prevailed in the case, but his colleague from the University of Pittsburgh pled guilty to a related offense because the stress of the lengthy prosecution was severely affecting his health and well-being. You may also want to watch Rendition. Although it is not a magnificent movie, this Hollywood thriller very strikingly depicts how innocent people can get caught up in the web of the “war on terror.” It also reminds us that under torture, one will say anything, and presumably, do anything, to avoid the pain. Which brings me to the second critique I have read about this bill.

According to a CNN. com article, Lieberman has announced that citizenship will be stripped when a person declares the intent to renounce it or if the State Department is “led” to make such conclusion. I cannot help but wonder the conditions under which someone might “voluntarily” renounce his or her citizenship. I know U.S. citizens who confortably live abroad and wish to avoid tax liability in this country do so. But what about when one accused of terrorist acts claims innocence Could it be that when the stress of defending his or her innocence affects their mental and physical well-being so that they finally give in? Or might the Government engage in more volatile tactics like waterboarding to convince an alleged terrorist to renounce citizenship?

It seems to me that this bill embarks on a very dangerous course as do many knee-jerk reactions. Fortunately, other attempts to easily strip a person of his or her U.S citizenship have failed, as I assume this one will. There is already a legal procedure to denaturalize individuals. The lengthy litigation against Ukrainian-born John Demjanjuk, a U.S. citizen accused of being a member of the German SS and a camp guard at Sobibor, is a clear example that the current procedures is effective and respects due process. Why do we need something else?