Sen. Ted Cruz Makes It Official

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

After further review...

Here's the text of the updated amendment Cruz submitted in January:



Notice anything?

Section 2 - "Loss of Nationality" gives NO DUE PROCESS. It keeps the current law as is and makes no change to it. Again, the current law strips due process and only requires "preponderance of the evidence," not the tougher, "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence.

Section 3 - Revocation or Denial of Passports or Passport Cards DOES give a due process hearing, if requested within 60 days of notice of nonissuance, revocation or restriction.

So while a person gets due process for a Passport issue; the major issue, loss of Nationality gives a person no such due process.

pdf version of bill - easier to read

You have posted the bill that has amendments to 8 U.S.C. 1481.

Notice the wording:

SEC. 2. Loss of nationality due to support of terrorism.

Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)) is amended to read as follows:

Now look at what has been written, originally, which WASN'T necessary to amend:

§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(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.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, §349, 66 Stat. 267 ; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, §2, 68 Stat. 1146 ; Pub. L. 87–301, §19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656 ; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 97–116, §18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620 , 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658 ; Pub. L. 100–525, §§8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618 , 2622.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?r...tion:prelim%29

[Jermyn Davidson]

Cruz will not win anyway. I just don't see him doing well in the primaries. Then again, the GOP has so many candidates and hardly any of them have what it takes to stand out from the crowd.

You know who does, and I hate to admit it, Jeb Bush. He stands out from the others. Rand Paul does too. Cruz is permanently a part of the others-- unless he can do something stupendous to change that.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Jeb Bush has the wrong last name to win an election.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Jeb Bush has the wrong last name to win an election.

Agree

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You have posted the bill that has amendments to 8 U.S.C. 1481.

Notice the wording:

Now look at what has been written, originally, which WASN'T necessary to amend:

But to whom is this preponderance of evidence presented? There is no statement of due process in that.

It's been shown the US government will disregard due process for any citizen it suspects of becoming a terrorist, to the point of using a drone attack against them.

Congress also authorized the government to arrest and indefinitely detain citizens suspected (no evidence needed, only suspicion) of colluding with terrorists with the NDAA.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Jeb Bush has the wrong last name to win an election.

His last name is the least of my worries, but certainly precludes me from ever considering to vote for him. He has the wrong policies to win an election.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

But to whom is this preponderance of evidence presented? There is no statement of due process in that.

Tt's been shown the US government will disregard due process for any citizen it suspects of becoming a terrorist, to the point of using a drone attack against them.

Congress also authorized the government to arrest and indefinitely detain citizens suspected (no evidence needed, only suspicion) of colluding with terrorists with the NDAA.

How do you interpret 8(D) NOT to be due process:

‘‘(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.’’.

You are blowing smoke.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How do you interpret 8(D) NOT to be due process:

‘‘(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.’’.

You are blowing smoke.

No, not blowing smoke. Sure, there's due process...for the scenario prescribed. (7) is specific to one scenario and is not addressing the 8 USC 1481 as a whole. You're taking one paragraph and applying it to the whole, when that's not what it's about.

Look again.

(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, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state 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)
(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, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) 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 (5) 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
(6) 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
(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.
(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.

(7) is simply addressing one scenario where a person "engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow....if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."

This is not in relation to the whole 8 USC 1481.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

No, not blowing smoke. Sure, there's due process...for the scenario prescribed. (7) is specific to one scenario and is not addressing the 8 USC 1481 as a whole. You're taking one paragraph and applying it to the whole, when that's not what it's about.

Look again.



(7) is simply addressing one scenario where a person "engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow....if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."

This is not in relation to the whole 8 USC 1481.

For heaven's sake, you are going to dismiss 8(D) to try and win this argument? Do you also believe the Due Process tied into the passport portion doesn't also affect the loss of nationality? Let me guess - no, you don't.

I am totally done for today. Wallow in your distortion of fact and truth.

Maybe Hipster Libertarian will let you hold her hamster...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

For heaven's sake, you are going to dismiss 8(D) to try and win this argument?

Are you going to seriously try to claim that the due process tied to the ONE scenario applies to the whole?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Do you also believe the Due Process tied into the passport portion doesn't also affect the loss of nationality? Let me guess - no, you don't.

No, I don't believe it does...because it's tied to Section 3 for Passports, and left out of Section 2 which addresses loss of nationality.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am totally done for today. Wallow in your distortion of fact and truth.

Ok. There is no distortion here.

FACT:
There is no due process outlined in Section 2 relating to loss of nationality. It is addressed and given as a remedy SOLELY for Section 3's Passport or Passport Card revocation, denial, etc.

FACT:
Paragraph 7 of the original 8 USC 1481 relates ONE scenario where a person voluntarily conspired to overthrow the government and was subsequently convicted by court martial or another court. When that occurs, the person "shall lose his nationality."