Election 2016

These 2016 Presidential Candidates Want to Revoke Americans' Citizenship

Forget Trump, how about Clinton, Cruz, and Carson?

|

Ted Cruz and his civil liberties consultant. ||| PamelaGellar.com
PamelaGellar.com

Donald Trump may be grabbing all the headlines with his thoughtful plan to revoke the citizenship of Americans born in this country to at least one illegal-immigrant parent, but he is not the only 2016 presidential candidate to advocate one of the most severe—and rare—punishments the federal government can mete out: taking away your passport and all the privileges that come with it.

* Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) last year introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which strips the nationality from Americans deemed to have given "material assistance" to organizations designated as terrorist.

* Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state in 2010, made cooing noises about the very similar Terrorist Expatriation Act:

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take "a hard look" at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects.

The family was so proud when she finally became a citizen! |||

"United States citizenship is a privilege," she said. "It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers — or in this case, foreign terrorists — are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens."

(Note that the vast majority of Americans, including Hillary Clinton, me, and probably you, took no such "oath" when they became citizens, as that happened on the day they were born.)

* Ben Carson wrote last year that "Anyone caught involved in voter fraud should be immediately deported and have his citizenship revoked." Though in fairness, that proposal might not make any actual sense, since the column in which it appeared is all about illegal immigrants.

I am confident there are other examples of 2016 candidates wishing to strip Americans of citizenship; please leave them in the comments and I will update as necessary.

NEXT: Conservatives Who Won't Read Fun Home Deserve Mockery. But Don't Be a Hypocrite.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state in 2010, made cooing noises

    Ew.

  2. Congratulations Matt! In this case “the right does it too” is absolutely correct.

    The worst example are all the ones who can’t read the 14th Amendment as written and totally ignore American common law jus soli.

    1. I don’t get why people think that blood citizenship is a step forward. I get why they prefer it.

      1. Because the US is a nation state. A nation is a large group of people with common culture, language, traditions, etc.

        It’s reasonable to assume that a child raised by people who are themselves part of the nation will adopt enough of the common values, culture, language, or whatever to be part of the nation.

        It’s reasonable to assume that a person who has gone through the process of naturalization has assimilated enough to be considered part of the nation, unless the naturalization process has been corrupted somehow.

        It’s not reasonable to assume that a child of people who are not part of the nation, and the very nature of their entry, have rejected the authority of the corresponding state, would be part of either, especially since their legal status will make assimilation that much harder. Certainly, they can be. But the likelihood is low enough that they should follow the normal path of naturalization (though they should not be pushed to the back of the line for the mistakes of their parents).

        1. A nation is a large group of people with common culture, language, traditions, etc.\

          Bzzztt. Canada is a nation with different cultures and language. India has a bazillion languages.

          1. And there’s no single common culture even inside the US.

            And go to England – people living 20 miles from you can be completely incomprehensible even though they (technically) speak the same language.

          2. So is America. The point is not that everyone is the same, but that there enough commonalities to create a sense of community.

            1. Well that could hardly be vaguer. A ‘sense of community’ is not the business of the state. And if you think most Albertans share a sense of community with Quebec…

              1. It is vague. The reason the issue is contentious is not because of cultural or language or any specific thing; it’s because, with democracy being essentially unchecked, people are afraid of ceding political power to people who are not only unlike them, but might view them as an other, since we have a tendency to treat “others” like shit when we can get away with it. When most people share your views, you can ignore totalitarian democracy, because it’s probably just forcing you to do things you would already voluntarily do. When that it isn’t the case, you feel its full weight.

                Some anti-immigrant types are concerned about economic competition, but others already feel powerless, and think that when their votes are further diluted, a government dead-set on stripping their rights will be able to do so with legitimacy. I know you think that breaking the political power of the right is a good thing for some reason (I guess the PPACA wasn’t enough evidence of what happens when the balance is disrupted), but Trump right now is a sign that people are pissed off enough that they don’t even really care about the rules of the game or winning, so much as playing it in the most dickish, antagonistic way possible. That’s stage 1 of a process that ends in someone flipping the board over and storming off. As applied to the political process, that’s… very bad.

          3. Lolz, Canada has no culture.

        2. You think revoking birthright citizenship is going to help assimilation efforts? What are you smoking?

          1. I didn’t say anything about helping assimilation efforts. It will remove the mechanism for conveying citizenship that is (I am guessing) least likely to produce assimilated citizens. Children born here should still have the opportunity to be naturalized, same as an unfortunate kid who was raised here but had the misfortune to be born a day before his mom made it onto U.S. soil. The DREAMer stuff, or some variant thereof, is good policy, but birthright citizenship is not.

            1. So in exchange for “more assimilated citizens” (why is total assimilation a necessary or worthy goal? What is wrong, particularly from a libertarian POV, with someone not giving up literally every aspect of their ancestral culture?) you’re instead gonna have an even less assimilated disenfranchised class of permanent residents who have known no other country? That sounds like a great trade /sarc

              1. It isn’t a question of total assimilation. It’s a question of
                1) having people in the country mostly see their countrymen as “us” instead of “them”, as they did, e.g., in the Jim Crow south, and
                2) avoiding deep, mutually incompatible political rifts when possible.

                “What is wrong, particularly from a libertarian POV, with someone not giving up literally every aspect of their ancestral culture?”

                As bad as the US can be, most cultures aren’t even remotely as libertarian as the US, so that’s at least one thing they need to give up from a libertarian POV.

        3. Also that doesn’t make sense. The child’s parents may not be Americans, but they’re born and raised here. They’re just as American as anyone else with those same characteristics.

          1. The child’s parents may not be Americans, but they’re born and raised here.

            Not necessarily raised here, and not necessarily in a way that leads to being integrated into the larger culture.

            1. Ahem – it is no business of yours or any official for that matter to tell me how to “integrate” my kids.

            2. For the vast majority of kids we’re talking about, yes they were raised here. Again, your argument is simply contradictory to what has been the standard citizenship law of the country for its entire history. Talking about nations and the importance of culture and shit doesn’t change history. And who are you to determine the appropriate level of “integration into the larger culture?” of someone born and raised here. What exactly is “the larger culture?”

      2. Because 190 countries do not grant birthright citizenship.

  3. “Ben Carson wrote last year that ‘Anyone caught involved in voter fraud should be immediately deported and have his citizenship revoked.'”

    To where? Antarctica maybe? The moon?

    1. Wherever they came from. California, Texas, New jersey, what difference, at this point, does it make?

  4. that oath which they swore when they became citizens.

    Man I hope somebody videotaped me taking the oath, because I sure don’t recall ever doing so.

    1. Same time as you signed the social contract.

  5. Wait a minute. Is Reason actually saying that most of the things everyone hates Trump for are the exact same things like a million other politicians think?

    1. The one you took right after they pulled you out. The same time that you signed your ‘we’re all in this together’ contract and your ‘Because fuck me, that’s why’ contract. Duh!

    2. Well, it’s easier to slip that in unnoticed when you just promise to do it to a small number of “terrorists” than when you promise to do it to millions of random citizens. Who could be against stripping terrorists of citizenship? You don’t support ISIS do you?

      1. ISIS claims to be a state, so it’s a little more legitimate in that case, provided that the “supporter” actually moved to their territory.

        But ideally, we would make it easy for ISIS supporters to leave and turn in their passports on the way out, rather than criminalizing them and keeping them here.

        1. Why again don’t we want these evil people to leave to die in the Iraqi or Syrian desert?

          1. Don’t ask me, I’d fucking pay them to go. Well, if I had that kind of scratch.

        2. I think the point is more the government arbitrarily taking away citizenship without due process.

  6. deemed to have given

    Deemed to have? Does Cruz support asset forfeiture also? There’s no way Rand would support any insanity like that.

    1. is that like “deemed to have passed” (as in the Obumacare “vote”)?

  7. punishments the federal government can mete out: taking away your passport and all the privileges that come with it.

    False. Titty fucking Christ, Matt.

    1. No, he spelled it correctly.

      1. His grammar is unimpeachable. His understanding of natural rights, like say, we serfs not needing a permission slip to leave the lord’s manor.

        1. Natural rights are a pleasant fiction, but here in reality the people with guns at the border won’t let you come or go without a passport.

          1. Natural rights being ignored doesn’t mean that they don’t (rightfully) exist.

          2. If natural rights don’t exist, there is also no such as justice within human interaction. You can’t justifiably protest when someone murders your children, it’s not like they have a right to live? You can’t trespass against a property owner who doesn’t have property rights where you are trespassing, similarly you can’t murder someone who doesn’t have rights to his own life.

            Consequentialists are closet nihilists.

  8. ‘Trump Is Right’: Levin Says 14th Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Illegal Immigrants

    http://insider.foxnews.com/201…..immigrants

    “A Constitutional Conservative” – hilarious.

    1. It is safe to assume Mark Levin’s understanding of the US Constitution is so low Nikki would happily send him to the gas chamber so he wouldn’t be a burden on his family or “society”

      1. Like a guy who commonly uses the term “re-pube-licans” could possibly misinterpret something.

  9. Hey! Hey guys! Pam Gellar is a terrible unperson! Make sure you remember that, so there is no confusion.

    1. Well she is.

        1. SIGH. Christ HM I am not watching an hour and a half video to try and decipher what your point is. She’s not even mentioned in the video description or the comments. YB is the real deal, not this Gellar fell’r.

      1. Where is she exactly on the Cytotoxic scale of unperson-ness? Somewhere between Border Collie and retarded dog?

        1. Probably closer to the retarded dog.

    2. But not worse than Nikki, amirite?

  10. I am confident there are other examples of 2016 candidates wishing to strip Americans of citizenship

    What do you think this birthright citizenship discussion is ?ultimately? for?

    1. To signal to the base that they will not embrace “amnesty” which, from my reading over the last year or so, seems to be the holy grail to the red team. Not even gay marriage or abortion seem to fire up the comments sections of the various righty blogs I’ve visited like the thought that somehow the current crop of illegal immigrants will be normalized in some way, shape, or form. It drives them bonkers.

      1. Which is why we have to do it. Forcing amnesty on America will be the final defeat that breaks them.

        1. No, there’ll always be a next “crisis” we absolutely have to act on.

          1. This isn’t like those.

      2. To signal to the base that they will not embrace “amnesty” reality.

        FTFY

  11. (Note that the vast majority of Americans, including Hillary Clinton, me, and probably you, took no such “oath” when they became citizens, as that happened on the day they were born.)

    Hey, we all have the option to ‘opt-out’ of the social contract any time we want.

    “Through early morning fog I see
    visions of the things to be
    the pains that are withheld for me
    I realize and I can see…
    that suicide is painless
    it brings on many changes”

    Until then membership in a state is, like health insurance, a requirement of being alive.

    1. We can’t have freedom without the state. The problem is that we have far too few states to choose from.

      1. Hah! To hear those on the left *and* right talk about it, the problem is that we have *too many* states to choose from.

        If we only had a one-world-government we could end global warming/poverty/tax avoidance/inequality/pick your idiocy du jour.

        Competition among businesses is essential, competition among governments is anathema.

        1. One social contract to unite us all, and in the collectivism bind us.

          1. I mean, look how well China’s doing!!! They have, like 8% GDP growth each year.

            Granted that most of that is due to them catching up technologically with the west and they’ve greatly over-funded certain business sectors (noticeably construction) and so those sectors have a huge amount of excess capacity and are headed straight for a post-boom bust. Oh, and they have no rights recognized by their government, heavy censorship, a draconian judicial system.

            1. You picked a funny example given the ‘special privileges’ accorded to Hong Kong-which is better off in every aspect.

        2. If we only had a one-world-government we could …

          … join the Federation?

  12. Oh noes! Ted Cruz is in a picture with someone opposed to Islamic totalitarianism!

    Quick, someone get me a burrito, so I can deliver the goods on my incipient fit of pants shitting!

  13. One aspect of the birth right citizenship question I haven’t heard anything about is what it means for the babies who are not the children of illegal aliens. How will these babies go about proving their birthright? They most certainly will have to prove their birthright, as the state will not so much be denying birthrights as they will be conferring birthrights. It seems likely, given the current state of the law, that the burden of proof will be on heavy upon the babies. We might have a situation where babies will be offering up notarized verification of their parent’s citizenship prior to receiving official confirmation of their own citizenship. A prudent state might, at least at first, demand proof back through generations. Most certainly there will be those born of the marginalized and homeless who will be unable to provide proof. What of those babies with careless and reckless parents, those who will not assist their babies in the delivery of proof? What of orphans? It’s going to be tough to be a baby.

  14. c’mon. If you fight for the enemy, you should lose your citizenship. Fuck those assholes. not everybody deserves to be an American, even if they were fortunate to be born one.

  15. So the anchor baby problem may be abated a generation after it could have saved us? … meh

  16. Rand Paul.

    In the NH CSPAN candidate’s forum, before the first debate, he answered a question about supporting Cruz’s proposal for stripping citizenship in the affirmative.

  17. Our government has already stripped registered sex offenders of the right to travel internationally yet I have yet to hear any mention of it by Matt Welch or Reason.

    This was brought about by administrative fiat and the bill before Congress simply formalizes it, and further expands upon it, by actually criminalizing the attempt to travel, to revoke passports, etc., but the condition of being unable to travel exists already.

    Why is Reason unwilling to speak to a clearly egregious violation of liberty?

  18. Rand Paul also cosponsored a bill in 2011 to attempt to end birthright citizenship by statute.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..14986.html

  19. Citizenship is a ball and chain if you live abroad.

  20. First picture (L-R): would, would not
    Second pic (L-R): would, would, would not

  21. to advocate one of the most severe?and rare?punishments the federal government can mete out: taking away your passport and all the privileges that come with it.

    It’s such a privilege, the Gov’t makes you pay to give it up voluntarily.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.