US lawmakers introduce bill to strip citizens of passports over Israel criticism
thecradle.co
thecradle.co
It's an unusual form of punishment. Not prison or money or community service, or ban from performing actions or duties, like with most crimes. No - you cannot leave the country. I can't think of any other crime for which this is the ultimate punishment (it can be a temporary one, but usually just to make sure people don't run away before a final judgment is made).
And I suppose for this to make any sense, this must apply only to actions that fall short of incitement to violence or terrorism - because for those you go to o prison. It must be things that, applied to not-Israel, are not crimes at all - else the law would be redundant. So I'm picturing something like, someone attensing a peaceful pro-Palestinian rally, and being told they cannot leave the country. Maybe even less, since people are already being prosecuted for that, with existing laws.
Most punishments involve some element of separating the perpetrator from the society. States pay money for prisons to keep criminals away, people are banned from professions where they screwed up. But here people are forced, at the expense of the US budget, to remain in the US among Americans.
(Notably it was used against WEB Du Boise and then when it was lifted and he traveled to Ghana, the US state department refused to renew his passport stranding him there until he became a Ghanaian citizen.)
Ofcourse America was still a functional democracy with the rule of law back then. His own party stabbed Nixon in the back when he got too crazy.
Trump is a monster and he is dismantling our legal system. But it is not the case that in the past we had a functional democracy and rule of law and now we don't. We very briefly had a glimpse of a functioning pluralism, which was never allowed to fully take root.
I wonder if this would have legs in the current Congress. Probably depends on how popular the other parts of the bill are (I have no idea what it's about, but I saw there's lots of other stuff in there).
1: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
That'll mysteriously get two wildly different in-practice definitions.
Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance. The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training".
In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
These organizations have tons of money and can bring on outside counsel to supplement their own. Also, merely having them on record as defending you would go a very long way in settlement negotiations. The bigger practical hurdle is knowing they exist in the first place, if you're affected. Presumably a quick chat with an LLM would point someone in their direction though.
The bill (HR 5300, Section 226) does not actually say that.
> Any individual who, in accordance with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the Secretary, may request a hearing to appeal such denial or revocation not later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or revocation.
That's an administrative hearing, not a court one. One could presumably still sue over this, but the likely end result is SCOTUS saying "nah".
First they did it to foreign nationals, now they're turning the same weapons against their own citizens.
are you 100% sure the point of this bill that punishes free speech is to gain points with electorate? or perhaps the donor-class ?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
SEC. 226. No passports for terrorists and traffickers.
1. Media Bias / Fact Check:
Funded by / Ownership
The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.
Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-cradle-bias-and-credibili...
2. AllSides:
The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review
An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.
While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.
Edit: Parent edited their comment and added their sources.
The Cradle is pretty obviously a biased publication.
Rather biased against NATO and Israel, but I suppose that could be a good or bad thing depending on one's perspective.
This sentence does not appear to be backed up by the article it is linking to, and the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet.
Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
> For much of its history, the ADL has operated in the United States as if it were a hostile intelligence organization—which, in essence, it was. The organization’s spymaster was Irwin Suall, who from the 1960s to 1997 ran his nationwide network of agents and informants from the ADL’s New York City headquarters. As millions of dollars in donations flowed into the “civil rights” organization, tens of thousands of dollars flowed out to Suall’s clandestine operatives in the field, actively engaged in violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans. Among his agents was Roy Bullock, a beefy San Franciscan with the codename “Cal” who posed as a small-time art dealer in the Castro District and spied undercover in the US for the ADL. To hide the ADL’s involvement, Bullock’s payments were laundered through a Beverly Hills attorney who, Bullock would later tell authorities, never missed a payment in more than three decades. Bullock said he would submit his reports to the ADL’s executive director in San Francisco, Richard Hirschhaut, now the regional director of the American Jewish Committee for Los Angeles.
This supports the stated claim. You can dispute the facts in this citation, of course (I don’t take them as the gospel truth myself), but The Cradle didn’t cite it incorrectly.
2. The Cradle didn’t say “being a front”, they said “functions as a [front]” which is equivalent to “acting like a” front.
Honestly, the word “functions” was the hyperlink to The Nation article. So surely you saw it?
Case in point, the other comment referencing a headline "Israel & rape" from the Cradle. Well, that's because the Israeli's do have a mass campaign of both torture & rape on Palestinian prisoners/hostages. Which has been confirmed even by former State Dept officials. Not to mention OPEN ADMISSION of this policy, widely, across Israeli media & politics. Down to streaming the rapes live to HQ (one of which was the one that was leaked and went viral), and then openly glorifying the SELF-CONFESSING rapist live on TV.
None of the above is a sensationalising the truth. It's just a strict, verbatim recounting of the truth, as admitted to (in self glorifying terms) by the accused. So it's not a sign of bias. If the plain, unvarnished, completely verified truth feels like bias to anyone, that's not a commentary on the messenger. It's a commentary on the observer.
You never see people question the gaff that garbage like VOA or NPR spit out on a daily basis.
(Also: look up '61% of israeli men'. That's what they're open to voluntarily admitting. You can only imagine how deep the rot goes inside that sick 'society'.)
Passport revocation of W.E.B. DuBois https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/when-civil-rights-were...
Passport revocation of William L. Patterson https://depts.washington.edu/moves/CRC_genocide.shtml
I'm pretty suspicious of the outlet, but even if it was the New York Times, no one should pay attention to this bill until there's some strong indication it may actually pass. Bonkers bills get introduced all the time and go nowhere. If you get worked up over them, you're wasting your energy.
It is downright preposterous to insinuate you can't be upset or demand accountability until after the authoritarian has all the votes and power they require and it's too late to do anything.
Proposing this alone should have Marc Rubio stripped of his position and blacklisted from office by public opinion. The fact it's not is a sign of how inept the American political system actually is.
Do you want to be upset literally all the time? I don't.
> after the authoritarian has all the votes and power they require and it's too late to do anything.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is don't get upset over every dumb or outrageous thing that gets "introduced." Almost all those bills die without any intervention, but writing articles about them is easy outrage clickbait.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Article IV (Privileges and Immunities Clause): The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states.
Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause): The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of liberty without being deprived of it without due process of law has also been cited by the Supreme Court as a basis for the right to travel, including international travel.
Ninth Amendment: This amendment protects certain fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, including the right to travel.
14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause): In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the right to travel as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal treatment regardless of residency.
But I guess what really matters at the end of the day is what a judge interprets those laws to mean.
And somehow it’s the fault of the district courts if they can’t interpret this madness.
How is this remotely relevant? Is this AI slop?
This bill would allow State Dept (neocons Marco Rubio who just traveled to Israel and met their prime minister) a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process, just through Marco Rubio’s discretion
The bill absolutely presents due process issues, at least for American citizens. (Visas are more complicated.)
My point is the other references are hodgepodges of hallucinations.
The relevant cases are Corfield and Paul [1].
They restrict states. Not the federal government. And since 1926, “the presidential administration” has explicitly had the power to “deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time.”
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Un...
(there are multiple citation links in the comments here, I won't duplicate them)
Sure, but he died before black Americans could reliably vote.
We have to dance around this bullshit for some reason. Conservatives get kicked out of social media platforms for being outright hateful bigots. If people are getting "cancelled" for being "conservative" then you're admitting that conservative ideology is far more intrinsically tied to racism and xenophobia than it is balancing budgets which is something the Republican party hasn't been able to do for half a century at least. This is the "fuck your feelings" not the "budgets must be balanced" crowd after all.
I think what we're seeing here is that conservatives are learning how to weaponize "politically correct" language. It doesn't matter one bit how many conservatives not just online but elected fucking officials say terrible shit. They are quite happy to cheer on the assassination of elected Democrats and the assault of a Democratic senator's husband. They will make jokes about it just being a jilted gay lover and not the incredibly common right wing fucking nutbag that it so often ends up being. They, including Charlie Kirk, are on record calling for people like Joe Biden to be executed and we're just supposed to roll with it. But don't pay proper respects to a racist piece of shit being killed by the very thing he defended and suddenly they clutch their pearls to the point where they create databases to track folks not being properly saddened to get them "cancelled". To get cancelled from the left you have to be a sex pest or an abuser or an abject racist. But to get cancelled from the right you just have to post quotes from their dead heroes back to them.
losing US passport seems like big deal that affects everyone in US