←back to thread

523 points sva_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
Zaheer ◴[] No.44314495[source]
Original DHS Announcement on Social Media Screening: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-to-begin-sc...

State Dept on what is considered Antisemitism: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

These definitions are intentionally broad and designed to censor criticism of Israel. You have more freedom to criticize the US Government than to criticize a foreign country.

replies(13): >>44314526 #>>44314820 #>>44315087 #>>44315104 #>>44315309 #>>44315447 #>>44315680 #>>44316478 #>>44316738 #>>44318457 #>>44319156 #>>44322666 #>>44327381 #
WatchDog ◴[] No.44315447[source]
Wow these are incredibly broad, in particular:

> Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.

Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.

Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"

replies(11): >>44315473 #>>44315607 #>>44316273 #>>44316424 #>>44316880 #>>44316897 #>>44317292 #>>44318124 #>>44318487 #>>44323278 #>>44323640 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44315607[source]
> There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel

This is legitimately debatable. If your allegiance is first to a foreign state, in my view, you should have to relinquish your American citizenship.

replies(8): >>44315615 #>>44315889 #>>44316065 #>>44316091 #>>44316490 #>>44316617 #>>44317942 #>>44318517 #
peterlada ◴[] No.44315615[source]
Totally disagree.
replies(1): >>44315635 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44315635[source]
> Totally disagree

Hence debatable.

Let me escalate: I think such a bill would find bipartisan support. Right now might be a good time to attempt it.

I hate the idea of revoking citizenship. But a question about swearing, on naturalisation, that your supreme allegiance is to America should be incredibly popular to secure.

replies(6): >>44315704 #>>44315783 #>>44315929 #>>44316105 #>>44316499 #>>44316590 #
1. WastedCucumber ◴[] No.44315929[source]
Hate to break it to you, but you'd have to find support from the IRS / Ways and Means Committee first. For these institutions, the primary characteristic of US Citizenship is filing your taxes, no matter where to live or if you've ever even lived in the country. This puts the USA in the same odd category as Eritrea, Hungary, and I believe one other country.

And despite the difficulty of revoking US citizenship, the rate of revocations has increased over the last decade or two. If there was such a simple way to toss out that old rag, I'm sure there would be many more (and a little less tax revenue).

So I'm afraid* the USA is much more transactional than you think, at least regarding citizenship.

*I must admit this is sarcasm. Thank god the US is transactional rather than so stubbornly patriotic about citizenship.