The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[KRonn]

Why do they prefer western fighters?  Their passports?

Most likely it's for propaganda just to have western recruits, and also so these fighters, once trained and battle hardened, can more easily re-integrate back into their home nation or another western nation and commit terrorist attacks.

[Valmy]

Surely joining an outfit like ISIS would mean you forfeit your citizenship in most western countries.

[Martinus]

Surely joining an outfit like ISIS would mean you forfeit your citizenship in most western countries.

Generally, modern conventions restrict the ability of states to create stateless persons - so if someone only has single citizenship, it is difficult to strip him or her of that.

[Martinus]

For example, for most European countries, the relevant provision is article 7 of the European Convention on Nationality:

1   A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at the initiative of the State Party except in the following cases:

a    voluntary acquisition of another nationality;

b    acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant;

c   voluntary service in a foreign military force;

d   conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party;

e   lack of a genuine link between the State Party and a national habitually residing abroad;

f   where it is established during the minority of a child that the preconditions laid down by internal law which led to the ex lege acquisition of the nationality of the State Party are no longer fulfilled;

g   adoption of a child if the child acquires or possesses the foreign nationality of one or both of the adopting parents.

2   A State Party may provide for the loss of its nationality by children whose parents lose that nationality except in cases covered by sub-paragraphs c and d of paragraph 1. However, children shall not lose that nationality if one of their parents retains it.

3   A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article if the person concerned would thereby become stateless, with the exception of the cases mentioned in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, of this article.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, the convention also prohibits unequal treatment of citizens by birth and citizens who acquired citizenship later in life - which means all those ideas of stripping citizenship and/or deporting immigrants who commit criminal acts after they have acquired citizenship are illegal.

[Martinus]

Ok, gotta correct what I said - apparently not all European (or even EU) countries have ratified the convention so far.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=166&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG

Still the UN Convention on Reducing Statelessness (do not remember the exact name) has similar provisions.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I think Britain had talked of stripping these people of citizenship but largely dropped the effort when it was decided it wouldn't be legal. In the United States there are only narrow reasons you can strip anyone of citizenship, even people who hold citizenship in another country. Namely, there are specific provisions that Nazis who managed to covertly come to the United States and get citizenship can have it retroactively revoked when this is found out, and more broadly anyone who committed fraud in the naturalization process itself can have their citizenship revoke. I think also if it's found you were involved in a terrorist group or group intending to "overthrow the government of the United States" during or prior to the naturalization process your citizenship can be retroactively revoked. But once you've naturalized, anything that you do after that I do not believe can be punished with citizenship revocation.

[Drakken]

Wouldn't these, however, be covered by legal dispositions regarding "treason" and "sedition" in most Anglo-saxon countries?

[OttoVonBismarck]

In America you get sent to prison for sedition and treason, removal of citizenship isn't part of it. The many crimes that exist for joining terrorist groups result in long prison terms, but not stripping of citizenship.

[Valmy]

In America you get sent to prison for sedition and treason, removal of citizenship isn't part of it. The many crimes that exist for joining terrorist groups result in long prison terms, but not stripping of citizenship.

Pretty sure you can get your citizenship revoked for serving in a foreign military.  At least my passport said I could.  Considering this is a group we are at war with that seems even more applicable.

But maybe my passport is just bluffing.

[Agelastus]

"[The Government of the United Kingdom declares that], in accordance with paragraph 3 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 8, the United Kingdom retains the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality on the following grounds, being grounds existing in United Kingdom law at the present time:  that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, the person
       "(i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition of Her Britannic Majesty, rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or
      "(ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty."

Unfortunately I get the impression that most of the idiots going to fight for ISIS are native-born Britons.

Plus, although this reservation is still listed, I don't actually recall if one of our post 1961 governments has legislated in such a fashion as to effectively void it.

[Jacob]

In America you get sent to prison for sedition and treason, removal of citizenship isn't part of it. The many crimes that exist for joining terrorist groups result in long prison terms, but not stripping of citizenship.

Pretty sure you can get your citizenship revoked for serving in a foreign military.  At least my passport said I could.  Considering this is a group we are at war with that seems even more applicable.

But maybe my passport is just bluffing.

... perhaps you can have your passport revoked, rather than your citizenship?

[Valmy]

In America you get sent to prison for sedition and treason, removal of citizenship isn't part of it. The many crimes that exist for joining terrorist groups result in long prison terms, but not stripping of citizenship.

Pretty sure you can get your citizenship revoked for serving in a foreign military.  At least my passport said I could.  Considering this is a group we are at war with that seems even more applicable.

But maybe my passport is just bluffing.

... perhaps you can have your passport revoked, rather than your citizenship?

Perhaps.  It seems weird that once you declare your intention to destroy a nation and slaughter all its citizens and then join an organization for the purposes to engaging in said activity, the nation in question would be unable to declare you an enemy.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Surely joining an outfit like ISIS would mean you forfeit your citizenship in most western countries.

hardly, it's a pain to take away citizenship from these people, even if they have another nationality handy.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Perhaps.  It seems weird that once you declare your intention to destroy a nation and slaughter all its citizens and then join an organization for the purposes to engaging in said activity, the nation in question would be unable to declare you an enemy.

That's a concept that has no meaning. There is nothing under U.S. law that requires you be formally named an "enemy" for us to say, kill you on the battlefield, or send you to prison if you're captured. Lincoln never accepted the premise that Confederates had stopped being American citizens. During Reconstruction they lost some of their rights of citizenship, but certainly weren't left stateless.

FWIW, unless you're naturalized your citizenship can never be revoked, ever. So whatever your passport says, if you're natural born then you cannot lose your citizenship.

The situations with foreign military service are complex, and I believe born from the early 1900s when many Americans aching to get bloodied in WWI enlisted in foreign armies:

Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that "the term 'national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."  Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals.  Non-citizen nationality status refers only to individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States.   A U.S. national who is a resident or citizen of a foreign country may be subject to compulsory military service in that country.  Although the United States recognizes the problems that may be caused by such foreign military service, there is little that we can do to prevent it since each sovereign country has the right to enact its own laws on military service and apply them as it sees fit to its citizens and residents.

Military service by U.S. nationals may cause problems in the conduct of our foreign relations since such service may involve U.S. nationals in hostilities against countries with which we are at peace. For this reason, U.S. nationals facing the possibility of foreign military service should do what is legally possible to avoid such service.

Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. , 163 U.S. 632 (1896), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in the United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of nationality since an intention to relinquish nationality  normally is lacking.  In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish nationality.  On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality.

Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the INA, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States nationality in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State.