By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new bill introduced by Rep. Brian Mast raises concerns among civil liberties advocates due to its potential to grant the Secretary of State, mirroring actions taken by Secretary Rubio, the power to revoke passports based on speech deemed to support terrorism. This legislation, part of a larger State Department reorganization, allows passport denial or revocation for individuals convicted or merely charged with providing material support to terrorism, or who are determined to have aided a designated foreign terrorist organization. Critics like Seth Stern and the ACLU’s Kia Hamadanchy argue that these provisions could punish individuals for their opinions and could be used to silence dissenting voices, potentially targeting journalists, and lacks meaningful appeal processes. The bill has faced scrutiny, particularly in light of similar past attempts to penalize groups and individuals based on their views on political issues, including pro-Palestinian activism.
Read the original article here
New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio “Thought Police” Power to Revoke U.S. Passports is a chilling proposition, at least that’s the immediate gut reaction it seems to provoke. The core fear, as I see it, stems from the potential for the government to control its citizens’ movements based on their beliefs and speech, effectively creating a system where dissenting voices can be silenced by the threat of being trapped within the country’s borders.
The core issue is that this bill, presented as a measure to prevent terrorists from leaving the country, could be easily abused. The concern isn’t necessarily the stated goal but the scope it provides. Specifically, the power it grants the government to determine who is a “terrorist supporter” based on their thoughts and statements. This is where the “thought police” aspect comes in – the very idea of someone’s opinion being enough to trigger a loss of fundamental rights is a cause for considerable anxiety.
History provides a harsh reminder that such powers can and have been used for political purposes. The case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student who had her visa revoked based on her critical opinion of Israel, is cited as a precedent. The fear is that American citizens, particularly those critical of the current administration or certain ideologies, could face similar consequences. This means being denied their right to travel, effectively rendering them prisoners within their own country.
The bill also raises the specter of a two-tiered system, where those deemed “undesirable” face restricted freedoms, echoing the tactics of regimes known for suppressing dissent. The specter of a chilling effect on free speech is very real, and the risk of the government overstepping its bounds to silence its critics. There’s the worrying potential for a climate of fear and self-censorship.
The potential consequences are severe. Imagine the passport itself becoming a tool of political control, tied to social credit systems. This directly contradicts the spirit of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and assembly. When a government can prevent its citizens from leaving the country based on their words, it’s a direct assault on the very principles of freedom and democracy.
The irony, of course, is thick. The argument that “if you don’t like it, leave it” is hollow when the same entities advocating for this sentiment are simultaneously working to prevent people from doing just that. The idea of being trapped is a primal fear, and a government that restricts its citizens’ ability to escape is not a government acting in the best interest of its people.
Furthermore, the conversation extends beyond the immediate concerns of the bill. There’s a sense that this legislation is part of a larger trend of eroding civil liberties, with many fearing that such legislation will eventually be employed by both sides of the political divide. Any power given to one administration can, and likely will, be used by another, regardless of political affiliation.
The underlying concern is that these actions are a precursor to the erosion of democratic principles and the adoption of authoritarian tactics. There is a palpable fear of a loss of freedom and a creeping sense that the nation is rapidly moving away from its founding ideals. The emphasis on “owning the libs,” the rhetoric of division, and the willingness to sacrifice constitutional principles for political gain are all seen as dangerous signs.
So, if a bill like this were to become law, it will undoubtedly raise concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the potential for government overreach. The underlying worry is that a law designed to “keep terrorists out” can easily become a tool to silence dissent and control the movements of those who dare to speak out.