I recently read New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio “Thought Police” Power to Revoke U.S. Passports and I wanted to read the actual amendment to the Passport Act of 1926 for myself and I thought some others might also.

I have reformatted it for markdown with hyperlinks from law.cornell.edu to laws that the amendment referenced. So that it is easier to read and cross-reference. Let me know if I made any formatting mistakes.

I want to hear everyone’s thought on this.

Right now, the bill is still in committe which means that it will either be cancelled (tabled), amended further, or approved (reported). If approved, the bill will be voted on by the House and then the Senate.

Could something like this reclassify dissidents as terrorists? Maybe allow for any and all naturalized citizens to be sent to a concentration camp? Could anyone who sent political aid to the Democrats be considered a terrorist? Like what could the reprecussions be and how far might they go?


H.R. 5300, page 43

SEC. 226. NO PASSPORTS FOR TERRORISTS AND TRAFFICKERS.

The Act entitled "An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the "Passport Act of 1926’’, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT TO INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

  • "(a) INELIGIBILITY.—
    • "(1) ISSUANCE.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of State shall refuse to issue a passport to any individual who—
      • "(A) has been charged with or convicted of a violation of section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United States Code; or
      • "(B) the Secretary determines has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
    • "(2) REVOCATION.—The Secretary of State shall, except as provided in paragraph (3)(A), revoke a passport previously issued to any individual described in paragraph (1).
    • "(3) EXCEPTIONS.—
      • "(A) RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES.— In order to facilitate the return of an individual described in paragraph (1) to the United States, the Secretary of State may limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States, or may issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States, prior to revocation under paragraph (2).
      • "(B) HUMANITARIAN AND EMERGENCY WAIVER.—The Secretary of State may issue a passport to an individual otherwise ineligible for such passport or subject to revocation of such passport under this subsection if the Secretary determines that emergency circumstances or humanitarian needs apply.
  • "(b) RIGHT OF REVIEW.—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.
  • "© RIGHT OF RESTORATION.—In the event that an individual described in paragraph (1) demonstrates during a hearing described in subsection (b) that the individual has been acquitted of an act described in that paragraph, or the Secretary otherwise changes a determination described in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph, the Secretary may reissue a passport to such individual.
  • "(d) REPORT.—
    • "(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of State refuses to issue or revokes a passport pursuant to subsection (a), or if, subsequent to a hearing pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary issues or cancels a revocation of a passport that was the subject of such a hearing, the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days after such refusal or revocation, or such issuance or cancellation, submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on such refusal, revocation, issuance, or cancellation, as the case may be.
    • "(2) FORM.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified or unclassified form.
  • "(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
    • "(1) the term ‘passport’ includes a passport card; and
    • "(2) the term ‘material support’ means the provision of any property, tangible or intangible, or service—
      • "(A) including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation; and
      • "(B) excluding medicine or religious materials.
  • "(f) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be construed—
    • "(1) or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; or
    • "(2) to limit the Secretary’s ability to revoke a passport.
  • "(g) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this section and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.’’.
  • unconsequential@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    First, I am not a lawyer or really eligible to interpret this at all but here I go anyway…

    • “(a) INELIGIBILITY.—
      • “(1) ISSUANCE.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of State shall refuse to issue a passport to any individual who—
        • “(A) has been charged with or convicted of a violation of…

    “has been charged with…” So, if I’m understanding this correctly, they can just ramp up some charges on you and keep you in legal limbo. They only have to accuse you and you could be locked in an endless cycle of appeals or pushed off court dates. Each one an opportunity to jail you for failure to appear etc.

    • “(B) the Secretary determines has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

    So here is the list of current FTOs. Mind you they just sanctioned some Palestinian aid organizations for allegedly aiding some of the ones on the list. Does that mean you’ll be charged if you give to an NGO that may or may not be tangled up with this list? Do they even really need to make a strong case of the accusations to charge you and strip you of your passport?

    And the question stands, what happens when they add an NGO Aid Organization to this list? I fear what’s happening in the UK to Palestine Action is just a tiny taste of what the US is willing to do. Your concerns about what could be added to that list under this administration is well founded in my opinion.

    Also…

    the Secretary determines has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist

    Does this bypass the court system? Who gets to call the shots on this? The Secretary of State? So Mr. Marco Rubio himself? He can just be like, “yeah, I think x organization is giving money to y organization and you gave money x so give me your passport.” And then all of the burden of proof lands on the person to try and fight Rubio and the executive branch… which… I mean they seem honest, right?

    I focused on Palestine examples because I think that’s what they’re most after with this but they could use it for literally anything and I think the most concerning is the sneaky bypass of the courts upfront. You can fight it but it’s shifting the initial steps away from courts and to closed door determinations. As it stands now you have to be convicted of something and then and only then they might restrict your movement, but it’s largely a judicial decision not an executive one. This changes the starting point to…

    Guilty until proven innocent.

    • Kanger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      but they could use it for literally anything and I think the most concerning is the sneaky bypass of the courts upfront.

      They could go full blown authoritarian with this. Declare anybody they want a ‘domestic terrorist’ and restrict their movement like the USSR and East Germany did. This is an attempted fascist power grab by Traitorapist Trump. He would be the actual person ordering this and Rubio would do whatever Trump says.