7 ms·
US lawmakers introduce bill to strip citizens of passports over Israel criticism
- josefritzishere 1y agoWell that's concerning.
- hollywood_court 1y agoThe party of small government strikes again!
- dimitrios1 1y agoThis is the uniparty at work.
- lupusreal 1y ago[flagged]
- taylodl 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ranger_danger 1y agoI've heard people across both reddit and HN claim that this violates 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Article IV of the Constitution. 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.
- pkilgore 1y agoWe don't even get that anymore. We get an unexplained shadow docket opinion overturning lower courts.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoOr a self-contradictory opinion that is 5-4 in the first half, and 5-4 in the second half, but they’re almost entirely different 5-4s (and god knows how ACB was able to split the difference and sign on to both). And somehow it’s the fault of the district courts if they can’t interpret this madness.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> 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 How is this remotely relevant? Is this AI slop?
- notfromhere 1y agoif you have the right to travel between internal states then there should be no reason you can't travel to other sovereign states.
- slt2021 1y agoMost importantly, no liberty of US citizens shall be limited without due process. 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
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> bill would allow State Dept…a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process 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.
- apparent 1y agoI've never heard of this outlet before. Does anyone know about them (who owns them, if they have typical journalistic standards, etc.)? I typically check these things when I come across a news site that I was not previously aware of, especially when the content relates to contentious topics.
- ceejayoz 1y agohttps://theintercept.com/2025/09/13/marco-rubio-revoke-us-passports-terrorism/ https://theintercept.com/2025/09/13/marco-rubio-revoke-us-pa... / https://archive.is/ND49e https://archive.is/ND49e
- ks2048 1y agoAt lest The Intercept links to a page for the congressional hearing, but I don't know why they don't say which bill or amendment this is referring to.
- ceejayoz 1y agoIt's in HR 5300. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300... SEC. 226. No passports for terrorists and traffickers.
- this2shallPass 1y agoI hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar. 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-credibility/ 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. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cradle-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cradle-media-bias
- apparent 1y agoLooks like the key language is the definition of "material support". [1] It appears not to include speech (though "training" could fall into this camp), and there is also a First Amendment carveout just below the definition. 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/text#H40A6BC763ED742C688171EC594820D97 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support"… That'll mysteriously get two wildly different in-practice definitions.
- Miner49er 1y agoNo, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/court-upholds-ban-on-terrorrelated-aid/c652dfbe-39cb-49eb-8b8a-139fc388a4a9/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...
- kelthuzad 1y ago>No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c... 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).
- charlescearl 1y agoPassport revocation of Paul Robeson https://www.nypl.org/events/exhibitions/galleries/selected-transcripts/item/17588 https://www.nypl.org/events/exhibitions/galleries/selected-t... Passport revocation of W.E.B. DuBois https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/when-civil-rights-were-un-american/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/when-civil-rights-were... Passport revocation of William L. Patterson https://depts.washington.edu/moves/CRC_genocide.shtml https://depts.washington.edu/moves/CRC_genocide.shtml
- comrade1234 1y agoIs this revoking citizenship? Or just your passport?
- Miner49er 1y agoJust passport, so revoking the right to travel to other countries.
- slt2021 1y agowould this lead to US citizens abroad be stuck and no ability to come back to US or travel anywhere?
- ceejayoz 1y agoUS citizens don't need a passport to return. They'll grumble and make you wait, but you've the legal right to reenter the country.
- stickfigure 1y agoThat's not how it worked for W.E.B. Du Bois. (there are multiple citation links in the comments here, I won't duplicate them)
- ceejayoz 1y ago> That's not how it worked for W.E.B. Du Bois. Sure, but he died before black Americans could reliably vote.
- tstrimple 1y agoSounds like a time a significant percentage of Americans would have considered to be "great" and that they would like to make those things happen again. We know for a fact they aren't pushing for similar tax rates to when America was "great". So what exactly are they referring to? Not a single conservative in existence has been banned from social media because of their passion for debating tax rates. So what is it exactly that is getting conservatives banned? 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.
- meh3749823 1y ago[flagged]
- slt2021 1y agoLet me guess, you include yourself in the list of smartest people in the world?
- meh3749823 1y ago[flagged]
- rich_sasha 1y agoIt's quite a twist of events. While some people, notably immigrants and foreign visitors, are being kept out, some people apparently are (would be) getting kept in. 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.
- slt2021 1y agoMost importantly no due process, no court judgement required. Just the discretion of Marco Rubio
- mattnewton 1y agoIt’s been used before to punish political speech, especially during the Mcarthy era against “un american” speech like support for labor rights where the government couldn’t win in court. I thought we had all agreed that was bad and moved passed it, but, I guess not. (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.)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Yeul 1y agoImagine if Nixon tried this during the Vietnam War. 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.
- slt2021 1y agoWhy is this flagged?
- ciconia 1y agoThis is one of many signs that manufacturing of consent doesn't work anymore. In the absence of such acquiescence from the people, western governments are resorting more and more to active and violent repression of voices outside the allowed "mainstream consensus". First they did it to foreign nationals, now they're turning the same weapons against their own citizens.
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45238520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45238520
- stopthebullshit 1y ago[dead]
- mnemotronic 1y agoElected representatives frequently introduce bills that have no chance of passing or being considered. This proposed legislation is only to gain points with the electorate: "I introduced a bill to ban/promote XYZ but it was killed by the other side". It's red-cape waving. I would like to come up with a name for this behavior but I'm trying to restrict my use of bad language and negative thinking.
- slt2021 1y ago>>to gain points with the electorate are you 100% sure the point of this bill that punishes free speech is to gain points with electorate? or perhaps the donor-class ?
- palmotea 1y ago> A US congressman is introducing a bill that could potentially be used to deny US citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel, the Intercept reported on 13 September. 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.
- Tadpole9181 1y agoI'm sorry, what? The Secretary of State is trying to subvert the first amendment and punish people for not supporting a genocidal foreign state by taking away his political opposition's ability to leave or enter the country. 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.
- palmotea 1y ago> It is downright preposterous to insinuate you can't be upset or demand accountability until 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.
- slt2021 1y agothis is a part if bigger package of bills to reform the Dept of State and give it more powers
- slt2021 1y ago[dead]
- DaveZale 1y agothe Israelis have more freedom of speech than Amercians do
- metalcrow 1y agoThis bill is obviously unethical, and furthermore appears to be illegal under the supreme court ruling Kent v. Dulles, which establishes the right to international travel (and thus a passport) a liberty that cannot be deprived without due process of law. So there would at least have to be a criminal hearing of some kind, unless the Supreme Court were to go back on this ruling (not impossible).
- o999 1y ago[flagged]
- blks 1y agoADL and AIPAC must be registered as foreign agents and closely monitored. They interfere in usa politics and elections much more than war criminal Putin ever did.