Jump to content

what is wrong with these people?


77

Recommended Posts

Interesting.  I'm pretty conservative, but I don't know if I would have voted yes to this either. Although, I do agree with the idea about revoking it for ISIS - I feel like it could open the door for that one day maybe you can't be a citizen if you're Catholic, Baptist, gay, straight, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.  I'm pretty conservative, but I don't know if I would have voted yes to this either. Although, I do agree with the idea about revoking it for ISIS - I feel like it could open the door for that one day maybe you can't be a citizen if you're Catholic, Baptist, gay, straight, etc. 

 

Not so fast. If the article is correct (and I read it on more than one website including the Washington Post to see how credible it was) then current law says that if you go to a foreign nation and take up arms against the USA, you have constructively given up your citizenship. 

 

ISIS is not a country but they are rebels trying to be. It appears that by the a stretching of the law, Americans can go fight for ISIS against the USA or against our interests and because ISIS is not a country (yet), the law does not apply. I believe that the intent is to say that if you take up arms against the USA, you lose your citizenship period and not say that it only counts if you take up arms against the USA..... but it has to be attached to some known country. 

 

I don't care if you are Catholics, Muslim, gay or atheist. If you leave this country's borders and join a fighting force against the USA, you should lose your citizenship and I think that is all that the bill is asking. 

 

Under that idea, I am all for it because now it appears that traitors can get around the law by simply saying that ISIS is not a country but in every other aspect, it is the same as if they joined the Syrian or Iranian army. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so fast. If the article is correct (and I read it on more than one website including the Washington Post to see how credible it was) then current law says that if you go to a foreign nation and take up arms against the USA, you have constructively given up your citizenship. 

 

ISIS is not a country but they are rebels trying to be. It appears that by the a stretching of the law, Americans can go fight for ISIS against the USA or against our interests and because ISIS is not a country (yet), the law does not apply. I believe that the intent is to say that if you take up arms against the USA, you lose your citizenship period and not say that it only counts if you take up arms against the USA..... but it has to be attached to some known country. 

 

I don't care if you are Catholics, Muslim, gay or atheist. If you leave this country's borders and join a fighting force against the USA, you should lose your citizenship and I think that is all that the bill is asking. 

 

Under that idea, I am all for it because now it appears that traitors can get around the law by simply saying that ISIS is not a country but in every other aspect, it is the same as if they joined the Syrian or Iranian army. 

I can't agree with the red in it's current state, however, you seem to clear it up in the black by stating "If you leave this country", and with that I do agree.

 

The first seems to limit US citizens the right to stand against it's government in the homeland as well, in fear of losing your citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree with the red in it's current state, however, you seem to clear it up in the black by stating "If you leave this country", and with that I do agree.

 

The first seems to limit US citizens the right to stand against it's government in the homeland as well, in fear of losing your citizenship.

 

Yep. You have to read the entire statement to see the intent and not a single sentence.... which when it happens in the media we call it taking something out of context. 

 

It is not meant for people protesting here even with arms as they have a constitutional right to plea their case in court.  For people that leave this country and become a foreign combatant should be no rights remaining and they have made a de facto statement giving up their citizenship or at least that should be the law. Apparently right now it only applies if they join another "country's" military and not a free lance or mercenary fighter for the same reason. It is a loophole in the law and I think Cruz tried to rectify it. If that was the intent (and I believe it was) then this law should be passed and it really just clarifies current law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,201
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


  • Posts

    • naw, maaaaybe 7, definitely not 8 deep.  today im avoiding sitting by #10s parents, had to move away yesterday.   "put my son back in jub, put my son back in"  and then crying on every little touch of someone.    lets ball out today ktz!    
    • Very close game until the 2nd half (mostly the 4th) when Orangefield came unraveled. Worse defensive effort I have seen out of the Bobcats in three years. This team has to get back on D and quit getting beat over the top when pressing. Offensively, non ball handlers continually turn it over and their shot selection is poor. Basic basketball, such as: defensive hustle, boxing out, and taking care of the basketball are the areas the Bobcats need to work on most. Whitmire will get them on point, but he shouldn't have to coach effort at the Varsity Level.  We'll be at McnNeese this Friday night at 6pm.
    • I don’t benefit from it, that’s not my area.  But the average cost to imprison someone is around $15k per year (on average in the US) and capital cases cost somewhere between $1.5-$3M with over half being overturned or reduced to life in prison anyway.  These numbers may be inflated since the last report I read but I’m sure it would be on both sides and higher on the DP side if anything. So what’s the point?  We feel better because we got to return the favor on someone (hopefully) who committed a heinous crime?  And I don’t know I can say we have “complicated” it. Which appeal should we cut out?  Our justice system has a pecking order and we have higher courts for a reason. When we are about to impose the ultimate judgment, should we cut steps that other cases have to save a buck?  Or do we not pay for an indigent person’s experts at the trial court level because it’s too expensive? Or do we just lock them up and throw away the key (unless we later find out they weren’t actually guilty, in which case we have a key and a life we haven’t unjustly ended) and save a ton of money?  Seems to me to be an easy and obvious solution but I’m more of a pragmatist.
    • 1 thing for certain. Coach Earned 3 more years to figure it out lol
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...