Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 545

If you Engage in "Hostilities Against the U.S." Should you Lose Your Citizenship?

Argument in favor

Supporting or engaging in acts of war against the U.S. is an act of treason. And since the people who commit these acts against the U.S. don’t tend to hang around for trials — revoking their citizenship may be the best we can do.

Cary's Opinion
···
04/08/2015
If you are fighting against the nation where you hold citizenship, are you actually being a citizen?
Like (39)
Follow
Share
Tamara's Opinion
···
04/05/2015
If anyone commits treason against the United States, endangers our citizens, or our property, they should not be allowed to retain their citizenship!
Like (22)
Follow
Share
BananaNeil's Opinion
···
04/05/2015
This doesn't actually seem like an attack on immigration, but of a precautionary measure against americans who have "joined ISIS or al Qaeda have attempted to return to the U.S. to carry out attacks." (according to the 'of note' section within 'More Information' [which is currently not showing up in the ios app due to a bug that will totally be fixed in the next version])
Like (9)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

"Hostilities against the U.S." seems like a pretty flexible definition — taking away a person's citizenship should be more carefully considered. Especially a person is compelled to support or participate in the hostilities.

Barkley's Opinion
···
04/05/2015
I would only be a yeah if there was some form of due process and found guilty by a jury of their peers. To revoke without due process gives to much authority to government, and regardless of party, it would be a cold day In hell before I would ever trust them to not abuse this authority. They already abuse their war time powers granted, only a fool would think this would not have abuse as well.
Like (130)
Follow
Share
Scythan's Opinion
···
04/05/2015
This is a good sounding bill that on reflection sets a dangerous precedent. How long until it's not just ISIS but joining the Democratic Party? Standing up for civil rights? Or protesting at Occupy Movements that are "hostile acts". The constitution needs to be followed here - no citizen deprived without due process.
Like (65)
Follow
Share
Xn's Opinion
···
04/05/2015
There are strict. Qualifications for treason. If you cannot meet these guidelines then you CANNOT revoke citizenship. These standards are in place for a reason. Messing with them without an amendment would violate the constitution, which is where we get the burden of proof.
Like (21)
Follow
Share
    If you are fighting against the nation where you hold citizenship, are you actually being a citizen?
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    I would only be a yeah if there was some form of due process and found guilty by a jury of their peers. To revoke without due process gives to much authority to government, and regardless of party, it would be a cold day In hell before I would ever trust them to not abuse this authority. They already abuse their war time powers granted, only a fool would think this would not have abuse as well.
    Like (130)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a good sounding bill that on reflection sets a dangerous precedent. How long until it's not just ISIS but joining the Democratic Party? Standing up for civil rights? Or protesting at Occupy Movements that are "hostile acts". The constitution needs to be followed here - no citizen deprived without due process.
    Like (65)
    Follow
    Share
    If anyone commits treason against the United States, endangers our citizens, or our property, they should not be allowed to retain their citizenship!
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    There are strict. Qualifications for treason. If you cannot meet these guidelines then you CANNOT revoke citizenship. These standards are in place for a reason. Messing with them without an amendment would violate the constitution, which is where we get the burden of proof.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a slippery slope. Should Martin Luther King's citizenship be revoked? Some people, a large portion of US citizens considered him hostile to US interests. I would have said yes if I do not know the history of our Country.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    No. The government has abused its power before, and it will abuse it again. I can see it now: new agency found revoking citizenship of a political group.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This doesn't actually seem like an attack on immigration, but of a precautionary measure against americans who have "joined ISIS or al Qaeda have attempted to return to the U.S. to carry out attacks." (according to the 'of note' section within 'More Information' [which is currently not showing up in the ios app due to a bug that will totally be fixed in the next version])
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    I chose ney, the way the Republicans are tramping on the rules of fair play, if I voted yea, and took a position that they disagreed with, I might be thrown under the bus too. We US citizens have existing laws for treason, and the
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    I support this, however they will have to be very careful on not being vague of the acts. Some simple things can be took the wrong way
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    People who leave the country to fight against the US should be treated as traitors.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    The insider threat is the most dangerous. Suggesting that keeping people affiliated with the U.S. that have undertaken action against is ridiculous. If these people were wearing masks and shooting at us from the firing line of ISIS, we would be justified in killing them as a combatant. Pulling their citizenship protects us here at home.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Rewrite to specifically denounce those who join in training, planning attacks, and specific activities with absolute and clear intent towards harming the U.S. in support of a foreign (specifically non-domestic) terrorist, drug-related or other organization with declared or discovered intent on harming the U.S. for interests contrary to the well-being of the people of the United States - then, after that rewrite, I would support this. The purpose of this rewrite would be to "protect" those domestic actors that believe a revolution is necessary, as our forefathers felt against England, and as the southern states felt against the federal union. This separates the interests of the people from the government as the two are not always aligned. Those "attacking" the federal or state governments may not always have intent on widespread harm to the people. I would not authorize denouncing citizens their rights in such a widespread and vague definition that could easily be abused, as Macarthy and the FBI's hunt of communists was once the accepted position of the federal government that was in contradiction to the wellbeing and rights of the people to their beliefs and opinions that threatened the government rather than (or at least far more than) the people.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Hell yes
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds like a loophole for someone in power to strip you of your rights
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    If you want to show anger towards the U.S. Then go right on ahead in some other country where citizens who love America aren't bothered by you
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This law as written could be used against anybody that even disagreed with the current president sounds like it was written by a democrat wanting to suppress free speech
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Laws already exist to cover this. It does not benefit the citizens to make it easier for our government to declare that we are the enemy. The Founders did not intend for it to be easy; with good reason.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    the Treason section already covers this. Redundancy is suspect.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE