Dear La Lydia,
You have a perfect right to consider this “nutcase stuff.” But I suggest you connect to the links which detail both the bill and the law it seeks to amend. Then follow the other links which go into how all of this was done quite legally with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, basing the authority granted by that law on the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed just after 9/11. All of these are made legal according to the “Laws of War.”
I certainly agree with you that it’s nutcase stuff. Unfortunately, it’s our DC ruling class which is NUTS!
I read it on the Library of Congress' bill tracking website. Then I looked at the existing statute, that is, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, originally enacted in 1961 and substantially revised in 1967. Existing statute ALREADY IDENTIFIES SEVEN CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH CITIZENS CAN LOSE THEIR U.S. CITIZENSHIP, this is NOTHING NEW, if they perform one of those acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." Under the proposed revision of the existing statute, an eighth category would be added for a person who "engages in hostilities or purposefully and materially supports hostilities against the United States." Hostilities means war or acts of terrorism or instigation/encouragement thereof. I have never seen the word "hostilities" used to mean domestic civil disobedience or political opposition. The target here is someone like the late, unlamented Anwar al Alwaki, who recruited other American citizens to attack our homeland and Americans and American assets abroad. He was born in the US to parents who were studying here and raised abroad and provides a perfect example of the folly of granting birthright citizenship. It seems to me that if an American citizen joins America's enemies in carrying out hostile acts against our country, that is, tries to kill us, we should be able to take it for granted that he or she is renouncing his or her American citizenship. We used to call such people traitors and hang them.
I infer from your comments that you support repealing the entire current statute, as well as oppose enactment of the revision. I think that would be a tragic, dangerous mistake. The posted article reads like it was written by Roseanne Roseannadanna.