Citizenship Revocation

An interesting discussion reared it's head over the last few days around people who go to fight in wars against there motherland, the main use case that has been brought up is people who have fled to fight in the Syrian Civil War against Coalition forces. (USA, France, Australia, UK) Then returned to these countries to live a "normal life". >Specific Examples - Alexanda Amon Kotey, El Shafee Elsheikh, Aqsa Mahmood and Shamima Begum >The main question isn't to discuss the war they fought in, but if they should be stripped of citizenship. >Secondary Question,If they are allowed to join back into the country they fought against, should they be tried for treason? There is a lot to explore within this subject personally, I understand that we are mainly a tech focused board but these cases strike me as incredibly interesting and being your standard average Joe Bloggs, I would like to see some opinions.

The automatic revocation of citizenship (and thus rights as a citizen) should not be within the powers of the state. However, they should absolutely be arrested and tried.

CItizenship revocation rests on sound grounds... >actively fighting the forces of your homeland with deadly means and providing physical or material support to terrorists The idea is grey where people join the fight AGAINST terrorists, becasue the flavor of the week group ("muhammeds freedom fighters" "the gang of jihad badasses" "the armed community watch group") which does not fit into an either coalition allied force (like major countries or their subcontractors (i.e. blackwater- which are technically armed tourists) not with the terrorists themselves (since they have not actively engaged in or declared war on coalition forces). Your actions do not leave you once you return home in this case, and could even be seen as an act of attempting to act as a sleeper agent for a terror cell. In much the same way that citizens gave up their citizenship to join the "nation of isis," there are specific published actions that strip people of citizenship. In the digital era, cyberwarfare and espionage also fall into a grey area, because actively engaging in hostilities against your country of citizenship is usually grounds for rejection. The problem is that up until iirc last year or the year before, there was no clear "laws of cyberwar" or rules of engagement, which meant that most cases were treated as criminal (not neccessarily cause for stripping citizenship) vs military (normaly cause for stripping citizenship) >Secondary Question,If they are allowed to join back into the country they fought against, should they be tried for treason? This is usually the only outcome. in fact it makes it easier for them to be tried than to try them in the locality of their actions. With the rare case (i.e. people who were abducted, raped, coerced etc. into supporting the terror organization - usually women and children) where people have a legitimate basis for asylum, most people who joined terror organizations did so willingly, or actively sought them out. Trial for treason has a legitimate legal basis where >military action was taken by a military or non-military entity >that military action was directed at the body of the nation via it's people and or government. There are many cases where people could be tried for treason, but are more commonly tried as criminals or terrorists instead (i.e. selling secrets like intellectual property and insider trading, or by attacking civilians). If anything, this applies double for tech sector, because at this point, you would have to do a lot to loose your rights as a citizen, but in 5-10 years, the wired may be treated just like modern countries. >a hacker may attack critical infrastructure form another country, then get tried for treason/terrorism the moment he steps foot on his home countrie's soil. It is also interesting to note that simply holding the position of officer in a foreign military is grounds for loss of citizenship in many countries, even if the two countries allow dual citizenship. The idea is that an officer as a military leader should have an unfailing dedication towards his country, and a confused or unabsolute loyalty can compromise his job as a servant of the state.

I would rather question the concept on citizenship itself. Is allegiance to a country a worthy concept any more?

>>10742 Citizenship should be a source of pride, something where you are proud to participate in a community... like when people ask where you come from and you can say your kin and country name. Unfortunately, citizenship is just another box to check, and it gets used as a data point or abused for the benefits that people have for "participating" in a society. imo citizenship should be opted in/earned, not bestowed just for being in a place at a time.

>>10739 >The automatic revocation of citizenship (and thus rights as a citizen) should not be within the powers of the state. citizenship is literally the reason for the state existing in the first place

>>10743 I agree with this completely. This gets at the very reason that we're in somewhat of a political mess right now, at least in the United States. Nobody that I know truly feels connected and prideful for their own country, and have a lack of identity because of it. Maybe making citizenship difficult to get would solve those issues, I've never thought about that.

>>10742 That's is another kettle of fish my friend, I wouldn't even know where the begin in questioning that. >>10740 >Your actions do not leave you once you return home in this case, and could even be seen as an act of attempting to act as a sleeper agent for a terror cell. This is a good point, however I would also stipulate they aren't just a danger to people around them but to themselves. This does differ in other countries but it wouldn't surprise me if people would go to decent lengths, to harm these people have come back "home". >in fact it makes it easier for them to be tried than to try them in the locality of their actions. This is what I personally subscribe to, however the issue that comes across is that these countries would never issue a fair trial for people that are suspected PoW's/Terrorists. CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT. But some countries would rather some individuals to disappear rather than fairly deal with them. >Treason Just doing research into the statues/laws that decide upon "Treason" in western countries, they are ancient to say the least. However the wording of this is quite interesting; >"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; I would say the only amendment to your previous two would be giving "Enemies" aid/comfort, which I personally agree that should be a punishable offense.

>>10747 >I would say the only amendment to your previous two would be giving "Enemies" aid/comfort, which I personally agree that should be a punishable offense. This brings up a good point about support systems in general, because things like medical/religious institutions generally have an obligation to support those in need, which creates a whole mess of things when known bad actors seek refuge in them knowing that they are semi protected and/or supported. In essence, a doctor observing a dying man and aiding him could be charged with treason simply by treating a man who will potentially return to conflict once healed if taken to an extreme. A similar debate arose with churches in the southern united states providing services for childcare and feeding the homeless and poor, because it became a crime to provide services to non-citizens, because in essence you were aiding individuals who had (legally at least) no right to be there and were in violation of the law. iirc the determination was made that support organizations had an obligation to assist those regardless of their actions and thus could not be held responsible for the actions of those they aided.

>>10746 automatic citizenship + optional participation was a mistake you have people who are proud to be Americans then spit on the very essence of what it means to be an American. The greatest irony are the people who kneel for the national anthem when they don't understand that the song is literally about equality and freedom and standing up for their country against enemies foreign and domestic. While I support the right for people do what makes them happy, they should not want full benefit of citizenship without having to abide by the rules of their land. People sound surprised that there are actual laws (that are not enforced) that explain the customs of the land for citizens (pic related). Worse yet are those who swore an oath and forfeited rights then complain that "I have rights" when they get reprimanded for disrespecting their countries custom (i.e. military members who protest or make political statements while in uniform- an unauthorized behavior that breaks apart the cohesion of those who exist as the weapon of the state).

>>10742 It is against the Geneva Convention of 1961 to render a person stateless. However there are mechanisms and circumstances that can allow a state to execute the right to take a subject's citizenship. I don't think that they should be stripped of their citizenship, for the sake of the question. If they decide to render their citizenship void, then mercenaries' citizenship around the world and in 'security' corps by necessity must be rendered void. If the sovereign wants to play sovereign, it cannot allow double standards for its subjects (even if sovereignty itself is a paradox) Either way the whole question of the concept citizenship must be interrogated more than even in a digital and interconnected age. As 2nd question, who cares? If they want to try them for treason in the first place they cannot and should not render their citizenship void.

>>10783 I typed New York instead of Geneva, that was my mistake. The 1961 convention to reduce statelessnesswas done in NY

>>10749 nothing in this posts indicates that you are talking about a free country. you could search/replace `s/north korea/america/g` and it would read with the same tone and meaning.

I dont see how nations are anything other than labels to divide and conquer groups of people by locking them in a set of predefined group thinking. Different nations are in my view just different sets of uses by a group of multinational elites to control individuals. Being stateless just means every can fuarrrk with you as opposed to being property of a specific group.

>>10749 this is some Hobbesian social contract bullsoykaf. fuarrrk America. fuarrrk all the countries. A nation is by definition unfree.

they should be treated as military combatants in a war situation.

>Alexanda Amon Kotey Brit, joined ISIS, beheaded Brits. Literally one of the guys in the Jihadi John videos. There's not a lot the think about here. He goes into the electric chair the moment he sets foot back in Britain. If they're too spineless to do it, USA has extradition from Britain. We bring him to Texas and fry him on live TV.

>>10812 Dont mess with Texas ,wannabe jihadi bitch bois!

soykaf man I wish I could revoke my citizenship

>>10786 >I dont see how nations are anything other than labels to divide and conquer groups of people by locking them in a set of predefined group thinking. Large groups of humans cannot exist without structure. If you just throw random people together then eventually leaders will emerge. If you just leave it to nature then your leaders will be the men with the greatest capacity for violence. And that's not a stable or fun society to live in. The purpose of the state is to suck violence out of citizen's lives. When somebody wrongs you you take him to a court of law and the state punishes him. This has proven to be a much nicer way to live because citizens don't have to spend every waking second worrying about personal safety they can go out and do cool soykaf instead. >Why not have a single global state then? Because leaders make mistakes and competition is good. The reason America was discovered was because Europe is a tightly packed area of competing states. Columbus literally went from king to king with his hat in his hand until he found somebody to fund his crazy adventure. The reason China didn't even end up with any colonies anywhere is because in the early 1500s the emperor decided he wanted to focus on internal affairs and burnt all the ships. That's the problem with a world government, all it takes is one dick at the wheel to drive us into oblivion. So it's a good thing that we have many countries with their own cultures and values and strategies. Because some will be more successful than others and everybody learns and improves at a faster rate.

>>10973 you literally just let your government know you want to cancel your citizenship, it just takes an official letter.

>>11007 America is an authoritarian soykafhole that requires you to pay several thousand dollars to remove the blight that is US citizenship

>>11008 wrong https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html

>>11008 If you have dual citizenship and vote in the other country, Merka revokes your citizenship.

>>11058 IIRC this only holds true for certain countries (like if the country has a problem with the USA)

There can be repercussions to revoking your citizenship. Not the kind of decision one should make while stoned, drunk, or in love. https://youtu.be/neS0JXzYjOQ?t=909

>>11007 Cool